LINITED STATESDiSTzuCTCOURT

r$nK'EoFFlcEii,$.gtsTc0uRT
ATO+IARTOTTESVILE,
VA
tri FD

DISrzucroF VIRGINIA
FORrHE WESTERN
DIVISION
CHARLOTTESVILLE,

LEGALNEWS,INC.,
PzuSON

rlCT
V\ e g ?cJ3

uti \:*vf.#*'',.t i
jUh(t' t* iUh.iCO_R^N,
QLE8K

COMPLAINT
AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff,

Civil ActionNo. 3:09cv

vs.

' '-

JOHNM. JABE,
GENEM. JOHNSON,
BENJAMINWRIGHT'
W.D.JENNINGS,
WHEELER'
SUSAN
1-5,
JOHNDOE
TONICOIK,SAMUELPRUETT,andR'W'
JAMISON,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
L

the
Th.isis a civil actionbroughtpursuantto 42 U.S.C.$ 1983to vindicate

Plaintiff s

Constitution'
rig;htsunderthe First and FourteenthAmendmentsto the United States
pllintiff seeksdeclaratoryand injunctivereliefto orderDefendantsto ceasetheir
conductas outlinedbelow. Plaintiffalsoseeksnominal,compensatory
unconstitutional
and punitive damages,and an awardof reasonableattomey'sfeesand costs'
Z.

of the publication"PrisonLegalNews" ("PLN")
haveengagedin censorship
Drlfendants
and
el'enthoughthe publicationcontainsnon-sexualand non-violentarticles
that do not implicatelegitimatesecurityconcerns.Additionally,
ailvertisements
Defendants'censorshippolicy and practicesdo not provide for timely and adequate
a final
ngticeand a meaningfulopportunityfor the publisherto provide commentsbefore
decisionto ban an issueof PLN from entryinto the Virginia prisonsystem.These

of their First and Fourteenth
policiesandpracticesdeprivePlaintiffand its subscribers
Amendmentrightsand serveno neutral,legitimatepenologicalpurpose.
J.

Defendantsalso currentlyprohibit prisonersfrom receivinggift books and gift
subscriptionsto magazinesfrom Plaintiff and other publishers,requiring insteadthat
paymentfor theseitems comesfrom prisoners'prison accountsand that ordersbe placed
andpractices,prisoners,manyof whom
throughprisonstaff. UnderDefendants'policies
are indigent,may not receivepurchaseson their behalf by family members,friends,or
charitableorganizations.This policy and practicedeprivesPlaintiff,as well as its
subscribers,
of its First Amendmentrightsand servesno neutral,legitimatepenological
purpose.

A
a.

Defendantshave also prohibitedreceiptby prisonersof PLN informationpackets,which
containinformationaboutsubscriptions,
renewalsand otherpublicationsandbooksthat
may be of interestto its subscribers
andotherprisoners.This policy and practicedeprives
Plaintiff of its First Amendmentrightsand servesno neutral,legitimate,penological
purpose.
JURISDICTION

5.

This actionarisesunderthe First and FourteenthAmendmentsto the United States
Constitution
and42 U.S.C.S 1983.This Courthasjurisdictionoverthis actionunder28
U . S . C .$ $ 1 3 3 1a n d 1 3 a 3 ( a ) ( 3a)n d( a ) ( a )a n d2 8 U . S . C .$ $ 2 2 0 1a n d 2 2 0 2 .

VENUE
6.

Venueproperlyliesin thisDistrictpursuant
to 28 U.S.C.$$ 1391(bX2)
because
of the
morethan35prisoninstitutions
in Virginia,Plaintiffhasnarrowed
anddirected
thefocus

of their
asrepresentative
of a numberof its specificfactualclaimsto two institutions
Divisionof the
arelocatedin theCharlottesville
grievances;
bothprisoninstitutions
Western
Districtof Vireinia.
PARTIES

7.

PlainrriffPrisonLegal News ("PLN") is a projectof the Human Rights DefenseCenter
("HRDC"), a WashingtonState501(cX3)non-profitcorporation.Plaintiff is
in the Stateof Washington,locatedat2400NW 80'hStreet,PMB #148,
headquartered
Washington98117. PLN publishesa monthlyjoumal entitled"PrisonLegal
SeattJle,
News;"which reportson criminaljusticenewsand issues.PLN alsopublishes,sellsand
d i s t r i b u t e s b o o k s o n a v a r i e t y o f c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e , h u m a n r i g h t s a n d s e l f - h e lP
p iLsNs u e s .
of
containingan extensivedatabase
alsooperatesa website(www.prisonlegalnews.org)
commentary, andothermaterialrelatedto thesetopics.
case.law,verdicts,settlements,

8.

Deferrdant
GeneM. Johnsonis the Directorof the Virginia Departmentof Corrections
and enforcementof all VDOC
("VDIOC"). He is responsible
for the implementation
policiesandprocedures.At all timesrelevantto this Complaint,he was actingunder
colorof statelaw. He is suedin his individualand official capacities.

o

DefendantJohnM. Jabeis the DeputyDirector,Division of Operationsof the Virginia
Departmentof Correctionsand hasbeenso at all timesrelevantto this complaint.
Appealsfrom the decisionsof the PublicationReviewCommitteedisapproving
publicationsaretakento his office. At all timesrelevantto this Complaint,he was acting
undercolor of statelaw. He is suedin his individualand official capacities.

10.

DefendantW.D. Jenningshasbeen,at timesrelevantto this Complaint,Chairmanof the

Publ:ications
ReviewCommittee("PRC"),which committeeis responsible
for making
final decisionsto disapprovepublicationssentto prisonerswithin the Virginia
Deparrtment
of Corrections.He hasalsobeen,at timesrelevantto this Complaint,the
personwithin the Office of the DeputyDirector of Operationsto hearappealsfrom the
final decisionsof the PublicationReviewCommittee.At all timesrelevantto this
Complainthe was actingundercolor of statelaw. He is suedin his individualandofficial
capacities.
I l.

DeferrdantBenjaminA. Wright hasbeen,at times relevantto this Complaint,Chairman
of the PublicationReviewCommittee,which as notedabove,is responsible
for making
final decisionsto disapprovepublicationssentto prisonerswithin the Virginia
Departmentof Corrections.At all times relevantto this Complaint,he was actingunder
color of statelaw. He is suedin his individualandofficial capacities.

12'

Defendants
JohnDoe 1 though5 havebeen,at timesrelevantto this Complaint,members
of the PublicationReview Commiftee.Eachof them is a voting memberof

the

Comrnitteefor the purposeof approvingor disapprovingpublications
sentto prisonersat
VDOII facilities.At all timesrelevantto this Complaint,theywereacting
undercolor of
statelaw. Eachis suedin his individualandofficial capacities.
l3'

DefendantSusanWheelerhasbeen,at times relevantto this Complaint,
the Wardenat
FluvannaCorrectionalCenter.As suchsheis chargedwith the responsibility
to make
initial decisionsto disapprovepublicationssentto prisonersat that

facility. At all times

relevantto this Complaint,shewas actingundercolor of state
law. Sheis suedin her
individual and offrcial capacities.

l4

Defen.dant
Toni Cox is the OperationsOfficerat FluvannaCorrectionalCenter.At times
relevantto this Complaint,shehasbeendelegatedthe authorityto make initial decisions
to disapprovepublicationssentto prisonersat that facility and hasexercisedauthorityto
denyprisonerspossession
of publicationsto which theyhavesubscribed.At all times
relevamt
to this Complaint,shewas actingundercolor of statelaw. Sheis suedin her
individualand official capacities.

l5

DeferLdant
SamuelPruett hasbeen,at all times relevantto this Complaint,the Wardenat
CoffeewoodCorrectionalCenter. As suchhe is chargedwith the responsibilityto make
initial decisionsto disapprovepublicationssentto prisonersat that facility. At all times
relevamt
to this Complaint,he was actingundercolor of statelaw. He is suedin his
individual and offi cial caoacities.

l6

DefenLdant
R.W. Jamisonis the OperationsOfficer at CoffeewoodCorrectionalCenter.
At tinies relevantto this Complaint,he hasbeendelegatedthe authorityto make initial
decisionsto disapprovepublicationssentto prisonersat that facility. At all timesrelevant
to thir;Complaint,he was actingundercolor of statelaw. He is suedin his individual and
official capacities.
FACTS

t7,

PLN is a legaljournal that reportson newsand litigationconcerningdetentionfacilities.

l8

PLN haspublishedmonthlysince1990andhasapproximately7,000 subscribers
in all 50
statesand abroad.PLN's subscribers
includelawyers,journalists,judges,courts,public
librari.es,universitiesand prisoners.The estimatedactualreadershipis 70,000per month.
PLN alsomaintainsa websitethat receivesmorethan 100.000visitorsa month.

19.

this Complaint'
Pllri currentlyhas,and at all times relevantto
who areprisonersinthe custodyof the vDoc'
subscribers

hashad' numerouspaid

at
includingsubscribers

Flu.rannaCorrectionalCenterandCoffeewoodCorrectionalCenter.
20.

public concern'
PLI'{engagesin protectedspeechon mattersof

21.

Defendantshave implementedvDoc
Del,endantJohnsonhaspromulgatedand all of the
op.:ratingProcedureS03.2,..IncomingPublications''(..oP803.2'')'

22,

permissionfrom the VDOC FacilityUnit
Pursuantto OP 803.2,all prisonersmust secure
to or otherwisereceivinga
heador his or her designeeprior to ordering,subscribing
publication.

23.

receiptof a publication' Someof
ot, 803.2alsocontainsa list of criteriafor disapproving
the criteriaare specific,suchas the criteria for

disapprovingpublicationswith sexual

"Material whosecontentcould be
content,while other criteria are vaguesuchas
of the facility,or offenderrehabilitative
detrimentalto the security,goodorder,discipline
ef[ortsorthesafetyorhealthofoffenders,staff,orothers.''
24.

"legitimate source"and publicationsmust
Prisonersmay only receivepublicationsfrom a
beprepaidfromtheprisoner,sprisonaccount...Gift''subscriptionsareprohibited.For
CorrectionCenter'was
ChristineAcker, a prisonerincarceratedat Fluvanna
e>lample,
ailvisedbyDefendantCoxthatshecouldnolongerreceivePLNbecauseitwaspaidfor
as a result of that third parry
b.ya third party,eventhough shehad beenreceivingPLN
the limited funds
piayment.Ms. Acker was ableto securea shortsubscriptionfrom
friend had
a.vailableto her in her prison account,eventhoughher
year subscriPtionfor her'

alreadypaid for a two

25.

Eachpermittedpublicationreceivedat a VDOC facility is reviewedprior to distribution
to the prisoner.

zo.

may disapprovea publication.
The Wardenat eachfacility or his or her designee

21.

andtherefore,
No ngticeis providedto the publisherthat disapprovalis beingconsidered
Plaintiff hasno opportunityto opposethe proposedban.

28.

receives
If disapprovedby the facility, the prisonerto whom the publicationis addressed
noticeof disapproval.No noticeis providedto the publisher.

zY.

For example,ThomasLittek, who is a subscriberto PLN and incarceratedat Coffeewood
Conr:ctionalCenter.receivednoticefrom DefendantJamisonthat he had disapproved
possession
of the April and May 2009issuesof PLN pendingreviewby the PRC. The
noticeto Littek simply identifiedOP 803.2,SectionL l2, "Materialwhosecontentcould
be detrimentalto the security,good order,disciplineof the facility, or offender
rehabilitativeefforts or the safetyor healthof offenders.staff, or others." However,
neithLer
Mr. Linek, nor other prisoners,receiveany informationas to the contentof the
that promptedthe decisionto disapprovethe publication
articte(s)and/oradvertisement(s)
at issuemeetthe criteria
or arrexplanationof how the article(s)and/oradvertisement(s)
idenrlified.

J IJ.

publicationis
the disapproved
Unlesswaivedby the prisonerto whom it is addressed,
submittedto the PublicationReviewCommittee("PRC") for final decision.

l t
J I

at the facility level,the wardenis requiredto makea
Whe,na publicationis disapproved
recordof hislher reasonsfor disapprovingthe publication,which recordis forwardedto
the I'RC. At no time is the publisherprovidedwith this record.

-)/..

The PRC needonly meetquarterlyto reviewpublicationssubmittedto it from the various
facilitieswithin the VDOC. No limit is placedon the Committeeas to the time within
which it mustconsidera particularpublicationor makea decisionwith respectto that
publication.

: i3 .

If the PRC makesa final decisionto disapprove
a publication,only thenis the publisher
notified. Suchnotificationsincludeonly the page(s)disapproved
without specifuingthe
article(s)and/oradvertisement(s)
which promptedthe disapproval.In someinstances,
Plaintiffhasreceivednoticethat the contentof the entirepublicationis disapproved,
Thus,for example,the noticereceivedby PLN with respectto disapprovalof the March
2009 issuestatesthat the entirepublicationviolatescriteria#12 in that it "could be
detrimentalto the securifyand sood orderof the institutionand the rehabilitationof
offenclers."No otherinformationis provided.

, \ A

-)1t.

The noticemerelyidentifiesby numberthe criteriauponwhich the disapprovalis based,
typically,as notedabove,"Materialswhosecontentcould be detrimentalto the security,
good,rrder,disciplineof the facility,or offenderrehabilitativeeffortsor the safetyor
healthof offenders,staff,or others." No informationis given as to how the disapproved
materialmeetsthe criteriaidentifiedby the Committee.

:r5,

The only time Plaintiff PLN receivedspecificinformationas to why a particular
publicationwas disapprovedcamein response
to an appealto Def'endant
Jabein which he
uphe|l a PRC decisionbecausethe materialin question"presentsinformationgeared
towar,Ja negativeperceptionof law enforcementthat could be deemeddetrimentalto the
securityof the facility or offenderrehabilitationefforts."

36.

Noticesto publishersare often delayedand thereforea publisher,suchas PLN, may only
receivenotice monthsafter the publicationwas disapprovedat the facility level and,in
someinstances,monthsafter a final disapprovaldecisionwas madeby the PRC. For
by the PRC on Apri|24,2009,yet notice
example,the May 2009 issuewas disapproved
wasrLotreceivedby PLN until August19,2009.

37.

In someinstances,
Plaintiff hasreceivedno noticeof decisionsby the PRC to disapprove
oneof its publications.

38.

providesthat a publishermay appealthe decisionof the PRC to the Deputy
OP 8113.2
Directorfor Operations.All of the appealsfiled by Plaintiffhavebeendenied.

39.

by the PRC.
Since2007,approximatelyfourteenissuesof PLN havebeendisapproved
The c,ensorship
decisionsare statewideand serveto ban PLN from all VDOC facilities.

40.

by facilitieswithin VDOC.
Sincer
2007,evenmore issuesweredisapproved

41.

From time to time, Plaintiff sendsinformationpacketsto its subscribersand other
priso.ners,
which includeinstructionson how to subscribeand describingbooksandother
printedmaterialsthat are availablefor sale. Defendantshavebannedsuchinformation
from distributionassertingthat prisonersmust seekpre-approvalof all suchmaterial.
CAUSESOF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Lack of Timely and AdequateNotificationto Publisher)

-L.

Aa

Plaintiffreallegesand incorporates
by referenceparagraphs1-41herein.

43.

NeithLer
the publishernor the subscribingprisoneris given noticethat a facility heador
his or her designeeis consideringdisapprovalof a publication.

' 4t TA

the publication.
prisoneris givennoticethat the facility hasdisapproved
The s'ubscribing
|-l6qrev0r,a prisonerhasno right to provide any informationto the PRC, is not informed
at issue,and doesnot have a copy of the
as to lhe article(s)and/oradvertisement(s)
publication.Thus,only the publishercouldmakea meaningfulchallengeto a
censored
decisionto censora publication.

15.

However,no notificationis providedto the publisherthat its publicationhasbeen
disap'proved
until aftera final decisionhasbeenmadeby the PRC. Thus PLN is
preventedfrom providinginformationor otherwisecontestinga disapprovaldecision
befor,:the PRC. The publicationis effectivelybannedwithout input until a decisionis
madeby the PRC. This is a binding,statewidedecisionthat resultsin the publication
beingbannedin all VDOC facilities.

46.

As noted,no noticewas receivedby Plaintiffas to someof the decisionsof the PRC to
apublicationand when Plaintiffdoesreceivesnotices,it is oftenmonthsafter
disapprove
the final decisionhasbeenmade.

47.

Moreover,if the PRC upholdsthe disapprovaldecisionof the facility,the Noticesentto
uponwhich the
publishersdoesnot speciff the article(s)and/oradvertisement(s)
disapprovaldecisionwas madenor doesthe noticestatehow the article(s)and/or
violatethe identifiedcriteria.
advertisement(s)

48.

Thus.,Plaintiff PLN is preventedfrom beingableto meaningfullyrefuteor otherwise
rebutany decisionof the PRC in its appealto the Deputy Director for Operations.

49.

reasonsfor disapprovaldecisions,
The failureto providetimely notificationand adequate
penologicaljustification,violatesPlaintiff s First Amendmentanddue
withoutadequate

10

processrights.
50.

As a Cirectand proximateresultof the conductof Defendants,
Piaintiff hassuffered
financialinjury.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Lack of Timely Decision)

51.

Plaintiffrealleges
and incorporates
by referenceparagraphs
1-50herein.

52.

OP 8t13.2doesnot setany limit on when a reviewof a facility censorshipdecisionmust
be considered
and completedby the PRC.

53.

In adrJition,
the delayin providingnoticeto thepublisherof the decisions
of the PRC
furtherdelaysthe ability of the Plaintiffto takethe limited appealavailableto it and
effect.ivelybansthe publicationevenlonger.

54.

The failureof Defendantsto expeditiouslyconsiderand resolvethe proposedban of a
publication,especiallywithout noticeto the publisherand without adequate
penological
justification,violatesPlaintiff s FirstAmendmentand dueprocessrights,
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(ArbitraryandCapriciousDecisions)

55.

Plaintiffreallegesand incorporates
1-54herein,
by referenceparagraphs

56.

Since2007,Defendantshavedisapproved
numerousissuesof PLN. On informationand
beliel"someof theseissueswerecensoredbasedon advertisements,
suchas an
advertisement
allowinga prisonerto purchaseitemsby the useof postagestampsfor
curTerncy.

57.

Similaradvertisements
havebeenincludedin everyissueof PLN sinceapproximately
1995and Defendantshavenot censoredall of the issuesthat containsuchadvertisements.

1t

58.

issuesof PLN basedon the assertionthat someof the
havealsodisapproved
Defendants
articl,:sput law enforcementin a negativelight and that thesearticlestherefore"could be
detrirnentalto the securityand good order of the institution and the rehabilitationof
offenders."

59.

Most of thesearticlesare summariesof reportedcourt decisionsor of the public recordof
the court proceedingstakenfrom court recordsor mainstreamnewspapers.However,
havenot bannedthe public sourcematerialsfor those
while censoringPLN, Defendants
articles.

60.

More,over,Defendantshave not provideda rationalefor concludingthat truthful reporling
of court proceedingsand decisions"could be detrimentalto the securityand good orderof
the irrstitutionand the rehabilitationof offenders,"thus preventingPlaintiff from
respc,nding
to suchclaims.

61.

The rraguecriteria describedabovehas led to arbitraryand capriciousdecisionsat the
facility level as well as the at PRC, particularlysincethe practiceof the PRC hasnot
providedadequateguidanceon the meaningof that criteria.

62.

The arbitraryand capriciousconductof Defendantsas describedabove,without adequate
justification,violatesPlaintiff s FirstAmendmentand dueprocessrights.
penological

63.

Plaintiffhas
As a directand proximateresultof the aforesaidconductof Defendants,
sufferedfi nancialiniurv.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Censorship
of Constitutionally
ProtectedSpeech)

64.

Plaintiff reallegesand incorporatesby referenceparagraphs1-63 herein.

l2

65.

Defendantshave disapprovedpublicationsthat containconstitutionallyprotectedspeech.
basedon articlesaboutcourtproceedings
For e:xample,
issueshavebeendisapproved
merelybecausethe proceedingor decisionputslaw enforcementin a negativelight.
Thus.issuesof PLN that containarticlesbasedupon court decisionsrelatedto law
enfor,cement
officials engagingin illegal and unconstitutionalactswill likely resultin that
issuebeingbannedfrom receiptby any prisonerconfinedin facilities underthe direction
and control of Defendants.

66.

Other issueshave beendisapprovedbecauseof an article that describesthe conditionsof
prisorrsandthe daily drudgeryand crueltiesof prisonlife.

67.

penologicaljustification,
violates
The a.foresaid
conductby Defendants,
withoutadequate
Plaintiff s First Amendmentrishts.

68.

As a directand proximateresult of the aforesaidconductof Defendants,Plaintiff has
suffer:edfinancial iniurv.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Refusalto Allow Gift Subscriptions)

69.

Plaintiffrealleges
paragraphs1-68herein.
and incorporates
by reference

70.

prohibitsprisonersin facilitiesundertheir
OP 8t13.2andthe practiceof Defendants
directionand control from receivinggift subscriptionsand gift books.

71.

The prolicyand practiceof Defendantsin refusingto allow gift subscriptionsand gift
penologicaljustification,violatesPlaintiff s FirstAmendment
books,without adequate
rightsr.

72.

As a rlirectand proximateresult of the conductof Defendants,Plaintiff has suffered

IJ

financialinjury
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Refusalto allow informationpackets)

73,

Plainl.iffreallegesand incorporatesby referenceparagraphsl-72 herein.

74.

Prohibitingthe receiptby Plaintiff s subscribersand othersof informationon how to
subscribeto the magazineand aboutbooks and other publicationsfor saleby Plaintiff,
without adequatepenologicaljustification,violatesPlaintiff s First Amendmentrights.

75.

As a ,Jirectand proximateresult of the conductof Defendants,as describedabove,
Plaintiffhassufferedfinancialinjury.

WHITREFORE, Plaintiff requeststhe following relief:
a.

Declaratoryjudgment that the failure to provide adequateand timely notice of decisions
to disapprovea publicationand to provide Plaintiff a timely and adequateopportunityto
be heardviolatesPlaintiff s First Amendmentand due processrights;

b.

Prelirninaryand permanentinjunction requiringthat facilities underthe control and
directionof Defendantsprovidenoticeto the Plaintiffof any proposeddecisionto
disapprovea PLN publicationprior to a decisionand that the noticeindicatewhat specific
are at issueand if a book, what pages,and an
article(s)and./oradvertisement(s)
or pagesin questionmay violate
explenationof how the article(s)and/oradvertisement(s)
the criterialistedin OP 803.2;
Preli:minaryand permanentinjunction requiringthat facilities underthe control and
directionof Defendantsprovide noticeto the Plaintiff of any facility decisionto

1 A
l a

aPLN publication,that the noticeindicatewhat specificarticle(s)and/or
clisapprove
eLdvertisemenr:(s)
are disapprovedand if a book, what pages,and an explanationof how

the

or pagesin questionviolatethe criterialistedin OP
article(s)androradvertisement(s)

803.2;

d.

Prelinrinaryand permanentInjunctiondirectingthatthe PublicationsReviewCommittee
consiclerany and all informationsubmittedto it by Plaintiff prior to decidingwhetherto
upholl a facility decisionto disapproveor ban a PLN publication;

o.

Prelinrinaryand permanentinjunction directingthat the PRC determinewhetherto
upholda ban imposedby a facility underthe controlof Defendantswithin 10 business
daysc,freceivinga publicationthat hasbeendisapproved
at the lacility level;

1.

Prelinrinaryand permanentinjunctionrequiringthat the PRC providenoticeto the
Plaintiffof any decisionto upholda facility decisionto disapprovea publicationwithin 7
daysof that decisionandto providenoticeasto the specificarticle(s)and/or

advertisement(s)
at issueand if a book, what pages,and an explanationof how the
or pagesin questionviolatethe criterialistedin OP
article(s)and,'oradvertisement(s)
g.

803.2;

judgmentthat an articlethat presentsa negativeperceptionof law
Declaratory
without more cannotbe the basisof a censorshipdecisioneitherby a faciliry
enforcement
underthe directionand controlof Defendants
or the PublicationReviewCommittee.

h.

judgmentthat the policy that prohibitsprisonersin facilitiesunderthe
Declaratory
and gift books
directionand controlof Defendantsfrom receivinggift subscriptions
violat,es
the First Amendment;

i.

Prelinrinaryand permanentinjunctionprohibiting Defendantsfrom enforcingthe policy
prohibitinggift subscriptions
to PLN andthe purchaseof gift booksby third parties;

t5

Decliuatoryjudgmentthat the policy that prohibitsprisonersfrom receivinginformation
packets(or comparableinformation)in facilitiesunderthe directionand controlof
Defe:ndants
violatesthe First Amendment;
'1.
l(.

Prelirninaryand permanentinjunction prohibiting Defendantsfrom enforcingits policy
prohibitingprisonersfrom receivinginformationpackets(or comparableinformation)
from PLN;

I
l.

Awalding Plaintiff nominal, compensatoryand punitive damages;

m

Awalding attorney'sfeesand coststo Plaintiff;

n.

Awarding suchother and further relief as the court may deemjust and proper.

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffherebydemands
a trialbyjury on all issues
sotriable.

Respectfu
lly submitted,
PzuSON
LEGALNEWS,INC.
By Counsel
Jef${yE. Fogel,'VSB
#75643
913 E. Jefferrson
Street
Charlottesville,
VA 22902
'434-984-0300
(Tel)
Enrail: i eff.fc'eel@smai
l.com
StevenD. Rosenfield,VSB #16539
.Attomeyat Law
?11E. JeffersonStreet

t6

VA 22902
Charlottesville,
(Tel)
434-984-0300
Ilmail : aftyrosen@aol.com
DanielE. Manville
(ieneralCounselfor the Human Rights DefenseCenter
P.O.Box 20321
llerndale,Ml48220
'.248-890-4720
(Tel)
llnrail: daniel.manville@gmail.com
t,oproceedprohac vice to be filed
,A.pplication
for Plaintiff
,A,ttomeys

t /