Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.

COMPLAINT
JURY DEMANDED

GRAYSON COUNTY, TEXAS; and TOM
WATT, individually and in his official
capacity as Sheriff of Grayson County,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center (“HRDC”) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization
that advocates for the human rights of people in U.S. detention facilities. HRDC publishes Prison
Legal News, Criminal Legal News, and other informational publications that educate incarcerated
persons and their families about their legal rights. Defendant Grayson County, through its final
policymaker, Defendant Sheriff Tom Watt, enforces an unconstitutional policy that functionally
bans Plaintiff, and presumably others, from distributing their literature to people incarcerated in
the Grayson County Jail, located in Sherman, Texas. Plaintiff has repeatedly attempted to send its
literature to people detained in the Jail. Each time, Plaintiff’s literature was rejected by Defendants
and returned to Plaintiff.
Defendants are wrongfully censoring HRDC’s communications with people incarcerated
in the Jail. Defendants’ unconstitutional policy of banning outside books and magazines violates
HRDC’s rights to freedom of speech and the press under the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution. Moreover, because the Texas Constitution’s Bill of Rights goes above and beyond

1

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 2

the floor set by the federal Constitution’s speech and press protections, Plaintiff HRDC has a
separate claim under the Texas Constitution for Defendants’ unconstitutional policies violating its
speech and press rights. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 8.
Defendants also fail to provide adequate notice of the reasons for censoring HRDC’s
materials, and fail to provide a constitutionally adequate process for appealing this censorship, in
violation of HRDC’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
HRDC brings this action to stop Defendants from censoring written communications with
incarcerated persons, and to obtain due process in challenging the purported denials. HRDC seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as punitive, compensatory, and nominal damages.
PARTIES
1.

HRDC is a nonprofit charitable organization recognized under Section 501(c)(3) of

the Internal Revenue Code. It is incorporated in the state of Washington, and its principal offices
are in Boynton Beach, Florida. HRDC’s mission is to educate the public and incarcerated persons
about the economic and social costs of carceral systems. HRDC accomplishes its mission through
public advocacy, litigation, and the publication and distribution of books, magazines and other
information related to prisons and the rights of incarcerated persons. Through its literature, HRDC
engages in core protected political speech and expressive conduct on matters of public concern,
such as the operation of detention facilities, prison and jail conditions, and the health, safety, and
constitutional and human rights of incarcerated persons. HRDC publishes and distributes two
monthly magazines (covering prisons and prison conditions, and criminal legal news and analysis),
as well as books about the criminal legal system and legal issues affecting incarcerated persons.
HRDC distributes its materials by mail to incarcerated persons, lawyers, courts, libraries, and
members of the public throughout the United States.

2

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 3

2.

Grayson County is a political subdivision of the State of Texas. The County funds

and operates the Jail, employs and compensates Jail staff, and is charged with ensuring that, at all
times, the Jail remains in compliance with federal and state law. The County is responsible for the
actions and inactions of the Grayson County Sheriff’s Office, and its employees and agents, as
well as Sheriff’s Office policies, procedures, customs, and practices. The Grayson County
Sheriff’s Office is and was responsible for adopting and implementing mail policies governing
incoming mail for incarcerated persons at Grayson County Jail.
3.

The office of the Sheriff in Grayson County is tasked with maintaining and

operating Grayson County Jail. Defendant Tom Watt, Sheriff of Grayson County, is employed by
and is an agent of Defendant Grayson County. He is responsible for the policies, procedures, and
operation of the Grayson County Jail, and the hiring, screening, training, supervision, discipline,
counseling, and control of the personnel who interpret and apply incoming mail policies at Grayson
County Jail. Watt is the final policymaker for Grayson County with respect to the operation of
Grayson County Jail, including for policies and practices governing incoming mail for incarcerated
persons. All acts and omissions complained of herein were taken under color of law. Defendant
Watt is sued in his official capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief, and in his individual
capacity for nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal

question), and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights), as this action seeks redress for civil rights violations
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s state law
claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as they arise from the same case or controversy as Plaintiff’s
federal law claims.

3

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 4

5.

Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)

because the events giving rise to this claim occurred at the Grayson County Jail in Sherman, Texas.
6.

Plaintiff’s federal law claims for relief are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which

authorizes actions to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights, privileges, and
immunities secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and
laws of the United States.
7.

This Court has jurisdiction over claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief

under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 57 and 65; and
over claims for nominal and compensatory damages against all defendants, and punitive damages
against individual defendants in their individual capacities.
8.

Plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees and costs is predicated upon 42 U.S.C. § 1988,

which authorizes the award of attorney’s fees and costs to prevailing plaintiffs in actions brought
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
9.

Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that the individual

Defendant as described herein acted with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights or with the intent
to injure, vex, annoy, or harass Plaintiff, and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in
conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights with the intention of causing Plaintiff injury, and depriving
Plaintiff of its constitutional rights. As a result, Plaintiff HRDC seeks compensatory and punitive
damages against the individual Defendant.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. HRDC Educates People Incarcerated in Prisons and Jails Across the U.S.
10.

HRDC publishes and distributes a monthly 72-page legal information magazine

titled Prison Legal News (“PLN”). The magazine has been published continuously since 1990 and

4

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 5

currently serves thousands of subscribers nationwide, including prisoners, attorneys, judges, public
libraries, and members of the general public. Based on subscriber survey data, PLN’s readership
is between eight and ten times that subscriber number. HRDC distributes PLN to prisoners in
hundreds of penal facilities across the United States, including institutions within the Federal
Bureau of Prisons and prisons and jails in all 50 states. PLN is also distributed to prisoners housed
in death row units and “supermax” prisons, including the federal Administrative Maximum
Facility (“ADX” or “Supermax”) at Florence, Colorado, the most secure prison in the United
States. More than a million copies of PLN have been distributed over the past 33 years.
11.

HRDC also publishes and distributes a second monthly magazine titled Criminal

Legal News (“CLN”), a 56-page magazine that contains news and analysis about individual rights,
court rulings, and other criminal legal-related issues. CLN also serves thousands of subscribers
across the United States.
12.

In addition to its magazine publications, HRDC publishes and distributes non-

fiction books, self-help books, and reference guides that help prisoners educate and improve
themselves. These publications include the Disciplinary Self Help Litigation Manual – 2nd
Edition, the Prison Education Guide, The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel –
2nd Edition, The Prisoners Guerilla Handbook, and Protecting Your Health and Safety: A
Litigation Guide for Inmates, to name a few.
13.

HRDC’s publications are core protected political speech and expressive conduct on

matters of public concern. See Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001);
Human Rights Def. Ctr. v. Sw. Va. Regional Jail Auth., 396 F. Supp. 3d 607 (W.D. Va. 2019).
Each of HRDC’s publications provides information about important legal issues, such as access to
courts and counsel, disciplinary hearings, prison conditions, court opinions, excessive force cases,

5

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 6

mail censorship, jail litigation, visitation, access to telephones, religious freedom, prison rape, and
the death penalty, among other topics.
B. Grayson County Maintains an Unconstitutional Book and Magazine Censorship
Policy
“Books are not allowed to be mailed in to inmates.”
Records Clerk, Grayson County Sheriff’s Office

Figure 1 (Example #1 of Returned Package Containing Book)
14.

Defendants maintain a policy amounting to a complete ban on books and magazines

from being delivered to the Jail by outside senders.
15.

Mail can be delivered to Grayson County Jail in one of two ways. Legal mail,

money orders, cashier’s checks, newspapers, magazines, and packages may be mailed to the Jail’s
physical address at 200 South Crockett Street, Sherman, Texas 75090.

6

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 7

16.

Personal, non-privileged correspondence from family members, friends or others

who wish to communicate with the incarcerated person must be sent to an offsite address at 2830
South Hulen Street, Box 809, Fort Worth, Texas 76109. This offsite location is operated by
JailATM.com, who on information and belief is a contractor of Grayson County and acts as
Defendants’ agent for the purpose of mail screening and delivery.
17.

All privileged and non-privileged mail must meet certain basic requirements for

delivery to the Jail. The sender must list their full name and address on the envelope. The sender
must also list the full name and “SO #” of the mail’s intended recipient.
18.

When mail is received by Defendants’ agents from an outside sender, it is screened

according to Defendants’ policies. All non-privileged incoming mail is initially inspected for
contraband and reviewed for impermissible content. Mail that includes inflammatory writings,
pornography, or information regarding escape plans or the manufacture of explosives, weapons or
drugs may be rejected. Mail that encourages disruption, or is detrimental to an inmate’s
rehabilitation may also be turned down. Mail may also be rejected if the envelopes contain
drawings, designs, or logos on them.
19.

Non-privileged mail that passes initial screening is then scanned by a third-party

scanning company who on information and belief is Defendants’ agent JailATM.com. The scanned
versions of this mail are then made available for viewing by their intended recipients on one of the
Jail’s electronic kiosks and tablets. This mail remains electronically viewable for fourteen (14)
days, after which the mail may no longer be viewed by its recipient. The only time non-privileged
letters are physically delivered to their intended recipients occurs when a person in the Jail does
not have access to one of the Jail’s kiosks or tablets. When this happens, Jail staff will print out a
copy of the scanned letter and deliver it to the recipient after it is received electronically by the

7

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 8

facility. On information and belief, the original letter is discarded by Defendants’ agents once it
has been scanned for delivery.
20.

Privileged mail sent to the Jail is subjected to less rigorous screening compared to

non-privileged mail. Jail policy defines incoming privileged mail as mail that is received from a
court official, attorney, Federal or State official, or bona fide member of the news media. Incoming
privileged mail must be opened for inspection for contraband by Defendants’ agents in the
presence of the inmate. Unlike non-privileged correspondence, this mail is delivered physically to
its intended recipients, rather than being sent to an offsite location for screening, scanning, and
electronic delivery.
21.

Defendants’ policy establishes a separate procedure for delivery of newspapers. Jail

prisoners are allowed to receive up to two newspapers per day. Newspapers must be mailed directly
from a publisher or nationally recognized supplier through the United States Postal Service to the
Jail’s physical address in Sherman. Per Jail policy, all inserts are removed from the newspaper by
Jail staff, and prisoners may not keep their newspapers for more than three (3) days.
22.

When mail delivery is rejected under Defendants’ policies, that mail is typically

returned to sender. As part of the return process, Defendants’ agents will affix a stamp to the
rejected mail offering minimal notice of the reason for the mailing’s refusal. The stamp says
“Refused/Return to Sender” and underneath, lists four possible reasons for rejection: “Contents
not Allowed”, “Not In Custody”, “Incomplete Return Address”, and “Unauthorized
Ink/Markings”. A blank space next to each option may be marked by Defendants’ agents to identify
the specific basis for denial. Occasionally, Defendants’ agents may write beneath this stamp to
provide other details explaining the rejection. These reasons—which include “No Books”, “No
Magazines”, and “No Staples”, for example—are clear statements of Defendants’ policy regarding

8

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 9

material they deem unacceptable for delivery to the Jail. See Figure 2 (Example of Returned
Package Containing Book).

Street

TX 75090-7170
750902006- 4N

•94 09/13/2;

POSTAGE DUE

:::

$

L .

RETURN TO SE NDER
REFUSED
UNAB LE TO FORWARD

lll11ll11llll11lll11ll,ll,l11ll11lll,l,ll,l,ll,l,ll,ll,l11llll

Figure 2 (Example #2 of Returned Package Containing Book)
23.

The intended recipient of any mailing is also supposed to receive a written notice

from Jail officials that their mail was rejected. The standard form notice issued by Defendants lists
the sender’s information and the reason the mail was returned, and is supposed to be signed and
dated by an officer and a supervisor. The sender’s information is sometimes omitted from this
notice, though, when it is delivered to a person incarcerated at the facility.
24.

Besides this stamp and related markings, Defendants offer senders no other notice

or detail about the basis for mail rejections. Nor do Defendants inform senders of any procedure

9

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 10

to appeal their decisions. That is because no such process exists to allow external mailers to appeal
Defendants’ rejection of any particular mailing.
25.

Notwithstanding this procedure for the screening and delivery of letters and other

mail, packages and books that are mailed to the Jail are banned under Defendants’ policies.
According to statements on the Jail’s website and in its Inmate Rules and Regulations,
“Packages/books will not be accepted unless authorized by Jail Administration.”1
26.

Defendants’ policy of banning books not “authorized by Jail Administration”

suggests that Defendants and their agents retain discretion to allow book delivery to the Jail on a
case-by-case basis. But in practice, this policy operates as a total ban on books from being
delivered to the Jail.
27.

A public information request to the Grayson County Jail confirmed as much. On

September 7, 2023, in response to a request under the Texas Public Information Act for a list of
books and literature not authorized by the Jail, and documentation reflecting internal decisions to
reject books or other literature, a Grayson County Sheriff’s Office Records Clerk explained that
“[b]ooks are not allowed to be mailed in to inmates.”2
28.

This de facto ban applies even when books mailed to the Jail otherwise satisfy Jail

screening criteria. When a book is delivered to the Jail, Defendants’ agents—applying Defendants’
unconstitutional policy—automatically return the book to its sender. Frequently, the package is
marked with a “Refused/Return to Sender” stamp with the “Contents not Allowed” option selected.
Beneath that stamp, Defendants’ agents write “No Books” to inform the sender of Defendants’
policy instituting a blanket ban on books sent to the Jail. See Figs. 1, 2. Though Defendants purport
1

Grayson County Sheriff’s Office, Inmate Correspondence,
https://www.co.grayson.tx.us/page/gcso.inmatemail (last visited Sep. 12, 2024).
2

No other records were produced by Defendants in response to this request.
10

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: 11

to retain discretion to allow certain books into the Jail from outside senders, on information and
belief this discretion is never exercised.
29.

Whatever Defendants’ justification for its policy banning books from being

delivered to individual recipients in the Jail, it is an irrational response to a governmental objective
that is not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. For instance, to the extent
Defendants’ book-ban policy is intended to reduce the risk of fire, completely banning all books
is an irrational and exaggerated response to such concern. Clear and obvious alternatives to a
complete book ban exist to address such a concern, including implementing a policy limiting the
number of books an inmate can have in his/her cell at any given time. Such alternative would be
easy to implement, as demonstrated by the fact that the Jail already limits each inmate to possession
of three books at a time from the Jail’s book cart, as explained below.
30.

Similarly, banning all books is an irrational and exaggerated response to any

potential concern that contraband may be smuggled into the Jail through books. Clear and obvious
alternatives to a complete book ban exist to address such a concern, including implementing a
policy limiting the books that inmates are able to receive to those mailed directly from the publisher
(as opposed to friends/family).
31.

Indeed, rather than implementing wholesale book bans, on information and belief,

the policies of multiple well-run penal institutions throughout the United States include similar
provisions limiting the number of books an inmate may possess at any given time and/or limiting
the books an inmate may receive to those mailed directly from publishers.
32.

Plaintiff has no other means of exercising its right to communicate the messages it

publishes in its books with willing listeners inside the Jail, as Defendants’ policies prevent Plaintiff
from sending its books directly to readers who request or purchase material from HRDC.

11

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: 12

Accommodating Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional right is likely to have a net positive
effect on the rights of guards and other inmates. Indeed, providing inmates with stimulating
literature that engages their minds can reduce disciplinary and behavioral problems, promote group
cohesion, and even provide therapeutic benefits.3
33.

Besides Defendants’ policy completely banning books from delivery to recipients

in the Jail, Defendants also maintain a policy banning magazines. As recently as November 2023,
Defendants’ agents noted on returned mailings their policy that “No Magazines” are accepted for
delivery to the Jail either. This policy was written directly on mailings returned to Plaintiff by
Defendants’ agents: Defendants’ agents wrote the words “No Magazines” directly beneath the
“Refused/Return to Sender” stamp to communicate Defendants’ reason for rejecting Plaintiff’s
mailings.
34.

Nothing in Defendants’ statements of policy on its website or in its rules and

regulations explicitly state that magazines are not allowed. In practice, however, magazines which
otherwise comply with Defendants’ correspondence policies are still rejected by Defendants’
agents. Mailings containing magazines are marked with a handwritten notation stating “No
magazines.” Defendants’ agents affix this notice either on the front cover of the returned magazine,
or the front of the envelope containing the returned magazine. On information and belief, these
magazines are being rejected because Defendants have instituted an unconstitutional policy
completely banning magazines from delivery to recipients in the Jail.

3

See, e.g., Keri Blakinger, “The Dungeons & Dragons Players of Death Row,” N.Y. Times
(Aug. 31, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/31/magazine/dungeons-dragons-deathrow.html.
12

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: 13

35.

Like Defendants’ book ban, Defendants’ magazine ban does not rationally serve a

governmental objective that advances a legitimate penological interest.
36.

This is underscored by the fact that Defendants have chosen to arbitrarily ban

magazines, while still allowing Jail inmates to receive up to two newspapers per day. Physically,
there is almost no difference between newspapers and Plaintiff’s publications—Prison Legal News
and Criminal Legal News. Like newspapers, PLN and CLN are both printed on newsprint-quality
paper, using black ink.
37.

Plaintiff has no other means of exercising its right to communicate the messages it

publishes in PLN and CLN with willing listeners inside the Jail. Defendants’ “no magazine” policy
cuts off Plaintiff from sending its content directly to subscribers and other willing listeners. Nor
do alternatives, such as donation of its content, remediate this problem. The timely news and
updates published in Plaintiff’s materials are intended to be used by inmates and other readers and
subscribers contemporaneously with the receipt of each month’s issue. Donation, to the extent that
is even an option, restricts the reach of Plaintiff’s communications to a much smaller audience,
and ensures their content may not be timely received by the people who could benefit most from
the magazines’ content.
38.

Defendants also maintain a “No staples” policy, in which any printed material

bound by staples is rejected completely and returned to sender. This policy prevents certain
publishers from distributing their material to recipients in the Jail, because staples are the only
practical way to bind their publications for distribution. The “No staples” policy therefore acts as
a de facto ban on certain publications, including PLN and CLN, which are each bound by small,
thin staples.

13

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: 14

39.

Plaintiff has no alternative means of binding PLN and CLN that would not be cost-

prohibitive. Plaintiff mails PLN and CLN to its subscribers directly from its printer, through which
Plaintiff receives a bulk mail rate. Were Plaintiff required to find some alternative, such as
removing the staples and placing the unbound publication in an envelope, Plaintiff’s labor,
materials, and shipping costs would multiply to a point where distributing its publications would
be financially unfeasible.
40.

Preventing staple-bound publications from entering the Jail is also an overreaction

to the actual threat posed by staples, which is minimal and speculative.
41.

Clear and obvious alternatives exist to a policy completely banning publications

merely because staples hold them together. For example, Jail officials could simply remove the
staples from these publications before delivering them to their recipients. Defendants are aware of
this option, because it is commonly known that the Jail’s chaplain removes staples from printed
publications before delivering literature to people in the Jail. Removing staples is also a less-costly
and time-intensive solution than the current return-to-sender process, where the Jail expends
resources to repackage rejected material, mark it with the appropriate stamp and reason for denial,
write a notice of rejection to the mail’s intended recipient, and deliver it to them. See Human Rights
Def. Ctr. v. Sw. Va. Reg. Jail Auth., 396 F. Supp. 3d 607, 623 (W.D. Va. 2019).
42.

Indeed, on information and belief, the policies of multiple well-run penal

institutions throughout the United States include staple-removal provisions, rather than wholesale
bans of publications that include staples.
C. HRDC’s Attempts to Mail its Literature to People Held in Grayson County Jail are
Rejected under Defendants’ Unconstitutional Policies
43.

HRDC began sending outreach mailings to people incarcerated in Grayson County

Jail on September 22, 2021. These mailings contained different kinds of literature that HRDC

14

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: 15

provided to recipients free of charge. As part of its outreach, HRDC typically sends four different
mailings: (1) an envelope containing a copy of Prison Legal News, (2) an envelope containing a
copy of Criminal Legal News, (3) a letter containing a one-page court ruling, and (4) a letter
containing a four-page information packet offering subscription details for Prison Legal News and
Criminal Legal News.
44.

Prison Legal News and Criminal Legal News are both magazines that are printed

on newspaper print and bound by two small, thin staples.
45.

In addition to these outreach mailings, HRDC also sends copies of two paperback

book publications: The Prisoners Guerilla Handbook, and Protecting Your Health and Safety: A
Litigation Guide for Inmates.
46.

Between September 13, 2022 and September 12, 2024, Plaintiff sent one-hundred

and ninety mailings to Grayson County Jail. Sixty-three mailings were returned to Plaintiff for
various reasons, including the packages containing books, staples, or magazines. Of those mailings
returned during that time, thirteen were packages containing books, three were mailings containing
HRDC Annual Reports, twenty-four were mailings containing Prison Legal News, and twenty-two
were mailings containing Criminal Legal News. See Fig. 3 (Chart of HRDC Mailings to Grayson
County Jail)

PLN
CLN
Books
HRDC
Annual
Report

Figure 3 (Chart of HRDC Mailings to Grayson County Jail)
Total
Returned Rejected:
Rejected: “No Rejected: “No
to
“No Books” Staples”
Magazines”
Sender
83
24
N/A
13
4
80
22
N/A
12
4
27
13
13
N/A
N/A
Unknown 3
N/A
3
0

15

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 16 of 27 PageID #: 16

47.

Plaintiff also made twenty-seven attempts to mail books to prisoners in the Jail. Of

those twenty-seven attempts, thirteen packages containing books were rejected because of the
Jail’s “No books” policy. Each of the returned books contained a handwritten notation on the front
of the package stating “Contents Not Allowed/No Books”, “Contents Not Allowed, No Books”,
“No Books Allowed”, “No Books”, or “Refused.”
48.

Magazines similarly are rejected by Defendants and returned to Plaintiff. HRDC

sent one-hundred sixty-three total magazines, and forty-six were returned. Of the returned
magazines, twenty-four issues of PLN and twenty-two issues of CLN—were rejected due to the
Jail’s unconstitutional ban on magazines. Like returned books, each returned magazine contained
a handwritten notation on its cover, or on the front of the returned envelope containing the
magazine, stating “No Magazines” or “No magazines allowed.”
49.

Defendants also rejected a total of forty-six magazine mailings—twenty-four issues

of PLN, twenty-two issues of CLN, and three copies of the HRDC Annual Report—for containing
staples. Each of the mailings returned to Plaintiffs contained a handwritten notation on the front
of the mailing stating “No staples allowed”, “Refused – No staples”, “Contents not allowed”, “No
Stapled Articles Allowed”, “No Staples Allowed, & not legal”, “No Staples”, “Contents not
Allowed: Staples”, “contains staples”, and “Staples not allowed.”
50.

Upon information and belief, Defendants have censored additional books,

magazines, and correspondence, which were mailed by HRDC to prisoners at the Jail but never
returned to HRDC.
51.

This pattern of rejection is ongoing. People incarcerated in the Grayson County Jail

are subscribers of Prison Legal News and Criminal Legal News, which are published and
distributed to subscribers on a monthly basis. HRDC also sends recently-incarcerated inmates

16

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 17 of 27 PageID #: 17

copies of their book publications as a form of outreach. But Defendants continue to screen out and
censor Plaintiff’s publications under their unconstitutional policies banning books and magazines,
and all stapled publications. As long as Defendants and their agents continue to enforce these
unconstitutional policies, Plaintiff will be deprived of its right to share its message with willing
listeners inside Grayson County Jail. Likewise, people incarcerated in Grayson County Jail will
not be able to receive and benefit from Plaintiff’s publications.
D. People Detained in Grayson County Jail Desire to Receive Plaintiff’s Literature and
Would Benefit From Having Access to That Material
52.

Detainees of the Grayson County Jail want to receive HRDC’s literature. PLN,

CLN, and the other books and publications HRDC provides offer valuable information that helps
incarcerated people stay informed about their rights while they are confined.
53.

On information and belief, those incarcerated in Grayson County Jail would likely

share HRDC’s publications widely, because of the legitimate educational value that HRDC’s
publications provide—information that is not otherwise attainable through the Jail’s electronic law
library, or from other printed material the Jail makes available to inmates.
54.

Indeed, HRDC’s literature is an especially valuable resource because the Jail’s law

library only provides threadbare legal resources to incarcerated persons via a system of electronic
kiosks and tablets to which Jail prisoners are given conditional access. These electronic resources
are often unhelpful to people who use it to research issues in their legal cases. For example, the
law library only provides access to case law—no self-help guides, treatises, or textbooks. To read
a case, a prisoner must know the name or case number of the case to locate it. The library offers a
rudimentary keyword search function that has been described as unhelpful in locating other useful

17

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 18 of 27 PageID #: 18

cases. Most troublingly, the law library is out of date—incarcerated persons can only pull up case
law decided in the last two to three years.4
55.

Receiving physical copies of HRDC’s publications is especially important to

inmates, because they lack reliable access to the electronic library’s resources. The electronic law
library requires an internet connection to use, but the Jail’s internet access is notoriously
inconsistent and regularly goes down during inclement weather. Jail staff also cut off access by
shutting down the internet without warning while transferring people out of the Jail—for example,
to a hospital for medical care, or to a prison facility for long-term confinement. During these
periods, loss of law library access may last hours or entire days. Inconsistent and unpredictable
electronic library access makes it especially important that Jail detainees have access to physical,
printed resources to aid in their legal research.
56.

The lack of consistent, reliable access to the Jail’s electronic law library is

especially problematic, because the Jail does not have an on-site law library, nor do Defendants
provide printed legal reference material to inmates. The only print material inmates have access to
is through the Jail’s book cart, which is brought around to each housing area once per week for
incarcerated persons to select up to three books. Inmates may not keep more than three books at a
time, and must exchange one in order to pick up another.
57.

However, the book cart does not offer any legal reference material; instead it

contains a selection of fiction, non-fiction, and religious reading material chosen by Jail staff.
Inmates cannot make requests for specific reading material. No legal resources, or information on
ways to file grievances, are offered on this book cart.
4

Through a second public information request, Plaintiff sought a list of the legal materials
available through the Jail’s electronic law library. Defendant was unable to produce any responsive
information, and instead referred Plaintiff’s representative to its vendor, which did not respond to
Plaintiff’s communications.
18

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 19 of 27 PageID #: 19

58.

The information offered in HRDC’s publications thus fills an important gap in the

literature and resources available to Jail detainees. HRDC’s publications offer incarcerated persons
much-needed and much-desired information about important developments in case law, analyses
about issues affecting their legal rights, and steps available to protect their health and safety while
incarcerated. But for Defendants’ unconstitutional policies banning HRDC’s publications,
Plaintiff would be able to share this information with people held in the Jail at no cost or expense
to Defendants, and at no risk to Jail security or stability. Plaintiff has a constitutional right to
communicate with prisoners.
E. Defendants’ Unconstitutional Policies Are Ongoing and Cause Substantial,
Irreparable Harm
59.

Defendants’ unconstitutional policies and practices violated, and continue to

violate, HRDC’s First Amendment rights regarding free speech and press under the United States
Constitution.
60.

Additionally, because the Texas Constitution provides speech and press protections

above the floor set by the United States Constitution, Defendants’ unconstitutional policies and
practices also violated, and continue to violate, HRDC’s speech and press rights under the Texas
Constitution.
61.

Defendants engage in a policy or practice that fails to provide senders of censored

mail adequate notice and an opportunity to appeal the censorship of the mail to the intended
recipient. This policy violates Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.
62.

Due to Defendants’ actions, HRDC has suffered damages, and will continue to

suffer damages, including, but not limited to: the suppression of HRDC’s speech; the impediment
of HRDC’s ability to disseminate its messages; frustration of HRDC’s non-profit organizational

19

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 20 of 27 PageID #: 20

mission; the loss of potential subscribers and customers; and the inability to recruit new subscribers
and supporters, among other damages.
63.

Defendants and their agents are responsible for or personally participated in

creating and implementing these unconstitutional policies, practices, and customs, or for ratifying
or adopting them. Further, Defendants are responsible for training and supervising the staff persons
whose conduct has injured and continues to injure Plaintiff.
64.

Defendants’ actions and inactions were and are motivated by ill motive and intent,

and were and are all committed under color of law with deliberate indifference to HRDC’s rights.
65.

Plaintiff will continue to mail copies of its books and other publications to

subscribers, customers, and other individuals detained at the Jail.
66.

Defendants’ unconstitutional policies, practices, and customs are ongoing, continue

to violate HRDC’s rights, and were and are the moving force behind the injuries HRDC suffered
as a direct result of the constitutional violations. As such, HRDC has no adequate remedy at law.
67.

Without relief from this Court, HRDC will suffer irreparable injury, since its

fundamental free speech and due process rights are being denied. The balance of hardships favors
the Plaintiff and the public interest will be served by granting injunctive and declaratory relief.
68.

The accommodation of the free speech and due process rights of HRDC with

respect to written speech protected by the United States and Texas Constitutions will not have any
significant negative impact on the Jail, its staff, or its prisoners.
69.

Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief as well as injunctive relief prohibiting

Defendants from refusing to deliver publications and correspondence from HRDC and other
senders without any legal justification, and prohibiting Defendants from censoring mail without
due process of law.

20

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 21 of 27 PageID #: 21

CLAIMS
COUNT I – 42 U.S.C. § 1983
VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT –
FREEDOM OF SPEECH & THE PRESS, PRIOR RESTRAINT
70.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 69 of

the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
71.

HRDC has a constitutionally-protected speech interest in communicating with

incarcerated people. That right is clearly established under existing case law.
72.

Defendants’ conduct was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken recklessly,

intentionally, willfully, with malice, and with deliberate indifference to the rights of others.
73.

Defendant’s censorship of HRDC’s literature is not reasonably related to a

legitimate penological interest.
74.

Nor do valid alternatives remain open for HRDC to share their publications, or for

recipients of HRDC’s publications inside Grayson County Jail to receive them.
75.

Accommodation of the right asserted by HRDC to deliver its publications to

inmates and detainees inside Grayson County Jail will have a negligible impact on Jail staff and
resources, and on the liberty of other prisoners.
76.

Defendants’ ban on HRDC’s books and other publications thus presents an

exaggerated response to any valid penological concerns, and readily available alternatives would
accommodate HRDC’s rights—and the coextensive rights of Jail detainees and inmates—at de
minimis cost to those penological interests.
77.

HRDC’s right to communicate with incarcerated people through the mail is clearly

established, as are the constitutional deficiencies in Defendants’ media screening and
correspondence policies. Therefore, Defendant Watt is not entitled to qualified immunity.

21

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 22 of 27 PageID #: 22

78.

HRDC’s injuries and the violations of its constitutional rights were directly and

proximately caused by the policies and practices of Defendants, which were and are the moving
force of the violations.
79.

Defendants’ acts have caused damages to HRDC, and if not enjoined, will continue

to cause damage to HRDC.
COUNT II – VIOLATION OF TEXAS CONSTITUTION ART. 1, SEC. 8 –
FREEDOM OF SPEECH & THE PRESS, PRIOR RESTRAINT
80.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 79 of

the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
81.

Under the Texas Constitution, an implied cause of action exists for suits seeking

equitable remedies for violations of the rights guaranteed by the Texas Constitution. See City of
Beaumont v. Bouillion, 896 S.W.2d 143, 148-49 (Tex. 1995).
82.

Article 1, section 8 of the Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution states:

“Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject,
being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing
the liberty of speech or of the press.”
83.

The Texas Constitution provides protections for speech and the press that are

greater than the floor set by the United States Constitution. See LeCroy v. Hanlon, 713 S.W.2d
335, 338 (Tex. 1986) (recognizing Texas “has been in the mainstream of [a] movement” to
“provide additional rights for their citizens” above the rights protected by the United States
Constitution, including for free speech).
84.

Prior restraints, in particular, are presumptively unlawful absent “the most

extraordinary circumstances.” Davenport v. Garcia, 834 S.W.2d 4, 10 (Tex. 1992).

22

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 23 of 27 PageID #: 23

85.

The Defendants’ “no books,” “no magazines,” and “no staples” policies are each

unconstitutional violations of Plaintiff’s rights under the Texas Constitution to freedom of speech
and the press.
86.

Defendants’ policies act as a prior restraint on Plaintiff’s speech and press rights,

because they prevent Plaintiff from sharing its messages with willing listeners inside the Jail.
87.

There is no “impending danger” that justifies the imposition of a prior restraint on

Plaintiff’s communications to inmates in the Jail. Davenport, 834 S.W.2d at 10; see Pirmantgen
v. Feminellli, 745 S.W.2d 576, 579 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 1988, no writ); Hajek
v. Bill Mowbray Motors, Inc., 647 S.W. 2d 253, 255 (Tex. 1983).
88.

Additionally, post-speech remedies are available to Defendants to remedy any

potential violations of law that may be caused by the delivery of illicit material to the Jail. See Ex
parte Tucker, 220 S.W. 75, 76 (Tex. 1920) (any abuse of the speech and press rights granted under
Article I, section 8 “are not to be remedied by denial of the right to speak, but only by appropriate
penalties for what is wrongfully spoken.”).
89.

Defendants’ actions in preventing delivery of Plaintiff’s reading material to willing

listeners in the Jail has damaged Plaintiff. As a direct result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has
incurred lost shipping fees, the disruption of its mission, the inability to share its desired message
with willing listeners inside the Jail, and a direct infringement on their freedoms of speech and the
press. If not enjoined, Defendants’ unconstitutional prior restraint scheme will continue to cause
damage to Plaintiff.

23

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 24 of 27 PageID #: 24

COUNT III - 42 U.S.C. § 1983
VIOLATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT –
DUE PROCESS OF LAW
90.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 89 of

the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
91.

HRDC has a right under the Fourteenth Amendment to receive notice when the

Defendant prohibits incarcerated persons from receiving their magazines and books.
92.

HRDC has a right under the Fourteenth Amendment to have an opportunity to be

heard when the Defendant prohibits incarcerated persons from receiving their magazines and
books.
93.

Due to Defendants’ unconstitutional policies and practices, Defendants do not

consistently provide notice or an opportunity to be heard before depriving HRDC of its free speech
rights.
94.

Defendants’ conduct was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken recklessly,

intentionally, willfully, with malice, and with deliberate indifference to the rights of others.
95.

The right to due process before censorship is clearly established under decades of

well-settled case law, as are the constitutional deficiencies in Defendants’ mail policies. Defendant
Watt is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity on any of Plaintiff’s claims.
96.

HRDC’s injuries and the violations of its constitutional rights were directly and

proximately caused by the policies and practices of Defendants, which were and are the moving
force of the violations.
97.

Defendants’ acts have caused damages to HRDC, and if not enjoined, will continue

to cause damage to HRDC.

24

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 25 of 27 PageID #: 25

DAMAGES
98.

HRDC seeks compensatory, punitive, and nominal damages for violations of its

constitutional free speech and due process rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments for
suppression of its message; diversion of its resources; frustration of its organizational mission;
injuries to its business reputation; and loss of revenue.
DECLARATORY RELIEF
99.

HRDC requests all declaratory relief to which it is entitled.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

100.

HRDC requests the court enjoin Defendants from practicing their censorship

policies in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of United States Constitution and the
Texas Constitution.
101.

Plaintiff requests the court enjoin Defendants from censoring HRDC’s publications

and issue a permanent injunction enjoining the ban on books and magazines at the Jail.
102.

Plaintiffs seek permanent injunctive relief requiring Defendants to provide written

notice to senders and an opportunity to respond before censoring their mail, and requiring the
adoption of specific guidelines delineating what materials the Jail must deliver to incarcerated
persons though the mail, as well as any other appropriate injunctive relief.
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
103.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rems. Code § 37.009, HRDC

is entitled to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs and expenses.

25

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 26 of 27 PageID #: 26

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
104.

Human Rights Defense Center requests the Court:

a. Declare that Defendants’ censorship policies and practices are unconstitutional
deprivations of Plaintiff’s rights to speech and the press under the United States and
Texas Constitutions;
b. Declare that Defendants’ failure to provide adequate notice and procedural
remedies to appeal the rejection of their material from the Jail violates Plaintiff’s
due process rights under the United States Constitution;
c. Grant a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering Defendants to stop violating
Plaintiff’s rights to free speech, free press, and due process;
d. Grant a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering the Defendants to provide
Plaintiff with due process notice and an opportunity to appeal if and when its
materials are censored by the Jail.
e. Award nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages against Defendants;
f. Grant reasonable attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and court costs pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1988 and Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rems. Code § 37.009; and
g. Grant all other and further relief as appears reasonable and just, to which Plaintiffs
may be entitled.

26

Case 4:24-cv-00828 Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 27 of 27 PageID #: 27

Dated: September 12, 2024

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:
/s/ Timothy S. Durst
Timothy S. Durst (TX #00786924)
tdurst@omm.com
Frances Mackay (TX #24109494)
fmackay@omm.com
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
2801 North Harwood Street, Suite 1600
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (972) 360-1900
Facsimile: (972) 360-1901

Peter B. Steffensen
Texas Bar No. 24106464
SMU DEDMAN SCHOOL OF LAW
FIRST AMENDMENT CLINIC
P.O. Box 750116
Dallas, Texas 75275
Telephone: (214) 768-4077
Fax: (214) 768-1611
psteffensen@smu.edu
Thomas S. Leatherbury
Texas Bar No. 12095275
THOMAS S. LEATHERBURY LAW, PLLC
Cumberland Hill School Building
1901 N. Akard St.
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (214) 213-5004
tom@tsleatherbury.com

Jonathan P. Picard
Fla. Bar No. 105477
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER
P.O. Box 1151
Lake Worth, FL 33460
Telephone: (561) 360-2523
Fax: (561) 828-8166
jpicard@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
* Pro Hac Vice Application to be filed
ATTORNEYS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
DEFENSE CENTER

27