UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
a not-for-profit corporation,
Plaintiff,
Case No.

v.
MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN;
DENITA R. BALL, Sheriff, individually and in
her official capacity; and JOHN AND JANE
DOES 1-10, Staff, individually and in their
official capacities,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.
COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION
1.

The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that the freedom for

incarcerated individuals to correspond with and read materials from the outside world carries
important benefits to both prisoners and society as a whole. Plaintiff, the Human Rights Defense
Center (“HRDC” or “Plaintiff), provides incarcerated persons across the United States with
publications about their legal and civil rights, as well as options for accessing education while
incarcerated. Defendants’ policies and practices, however, frustrate the HRDC’s mission by
unconstitutionally prohibiting delivery of Plaintiff’s publications to prisoners housed in the
Milwaukee County Jail (“Jail” or “Facility”), in violation of the First Amendment. Defendants’
policies and practices also deny due process of law to senders, such as Plaintiff, whose mail is
censored, by failing to provide notice of and an opportunity to challenge each instance of
censorship as required by the Fourteenth Amendment. HRDC brings this action to enjoin

Case 2:24-cv-00981-NJ

Filed 08/02/24

Page 1 of 12

Document 1

Defendants’ censorship of its books and magazines sent to prisoners held in the Jail, and to
require Defendants to provide due process when they reject items sent to prisoners at the Facility.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.

This suit is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), as this action

arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343
(civil rights), as this action seeks redress for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3.

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). At least one Defendant resides within

this judicial district, and the events giving rise to the claims asserted here all occurred within this
judicial district.
4.

HRDC’s claims for relief are brought pursuant to 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 Constitution and laws of the
United States.
5.

This Court has jurisdiction over claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 2201 and 2202, and this Court also has jurisdiction to award damages
against all Defendants.
6.

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

which authorizes the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to prevailing plaintiffs in actions brought
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
PARTIES
7.

The Human Rights Defense Center is a not-for-profit charitable organization

recognized under § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, incorporated in the state of
Washington and with principal offices in Lake Worth, Florida. The purpose of the HRDC is to

2
Case 2:24-cv-00981-NJ

Filed 08/02/24

Page 2 of 12

Document 1

educate prisoners and the public about the destructive nature of racism, sexism, and the
economic and social costs of prisons to society. The HRDC accomplishes its missions through
advocacy, litigation, and the publication and distribution of books, magazines, and other
information concerning prisons and prisoner rights.
8.

Defendant Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (“County”) is a unit of government

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Wisconsin. The County operates the Jail,
and it was and is responsible for adopting and implementing policies governing incoming mail
and publications for prisoners at that facility.
9.

Defendant Denita R. Ball is the elected Sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.

She has held that position since November 2022. Defendant Ball is employed by and is an agent
of the County, and is responsible for the overall management of the Jail. She has ultimate
responsibility for the promulgation and enforcement of all Jail policies, practices, and
procedures, including the policies, practices, and procedures relating to mail and the reading
material that is available to prisoners. She is sued in her individual and official capacities.
10.

The true names and identities of Defendant DOES 1 through 10 are unknown to

the HRDC. Each of Defendants DOES 1 through 10 is or was employed by or were agents of the
County and/or Defendant Ball. Defendant DOES 1 through 10 were personally involved in the
adoption and/or implementation of the publications and mail policies at the Jail.
11.

At all times material to this action, the actions of all Defendants as alleged here

were taken under the authority and color of state law.
12.

At all times material to this action, all Defendants were acting within the course

and scope of their employment as agents and/or employees of the County.

3
Case 2:24-cv-00981-NJ

Filed 08/02/24

Page 3 of 12

Document 1

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. HRDC’s Mission and Outreach to Detention Facilities
13.

For more than 30 years, HRDC’s mission has been public education, advocacy,

and outreach on behalf of, and for the purpose of assisting, prisoners who seek legal redress for
infringements of their constitutionally guaranteed and other basic human rights. HRDC’s
mission, if realized, has a valuable effect on public safety.
14.

To accomplish its mission, HRDC publishes and distributes books, magazines,

and other materials containing news and analysis about prisons, jails, and other detention
facilities, prisoners’ rights, court rulings, management of prison facilities, prison conditions, and
other matters pertaining to the rights and interests of incarcerated individuals.
15.

HRDC has thousands of customers in the United States and abroad, including

prisoners, attorneys, journalists, public libraries, judges, and members of the general public.
Since its creation in 1990, HRDC has sent its publications to prisoners and librarians in more
than 3,000 correctional facilities located across all fifty states, including the Federal Bureau of
Prisons and various facilities within the State of Wisconsin, such as FCI Oxford, the Taylor
County Jail, and numerous prisons run by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections.
16.

HRDC publishes and distributed a 72-page monthly magazine titled Prison Legal

News: Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights, which contains news and analysis about prisons,
jails, and other detention facilities, prisoners’ rights, court opinions, management of prison
facilities, prison conditions, and other matters pertaining to the rights and interests of
incarcerated individuals. In 2013, Prison Legal News received the First Amendment Award from
the Society of Professional Journalists.

4
Case 2:24-cv-00981-NJ

Filed 08/02/24

Page 4 of 12

Document 1

17.

More recently, HRDC also began publishing a second monthly magazine,

Criminal Legal News. This magazine focuses on review and analysis of individual rights, court
rulings, and news about criminal justice-related issues.
18.

HRDC also publishes and/or distributes dozens of different softcover books about

the criminal justice system, legal reference books, and self-help books of interest to prisoners.
Their books are designed to foster a better understanding of criminal justice policies to allow
prisoners to educate themselves about related issues, such as legal research, how to write a
business letter, health care issues, and similar topics. HRDC also publishes and distributes the
Prisoners’ Guerilla Handbook: A Guide to Correspondence Programs in the United States and
Canada (“Prisoners’ Guerilla Handbook”), which provides prisoners information on enrolling at
accredited higher educational, vocational, and training schools. HRDC is also the sole national
distributor of Protecting Your Health and Safety (“PYHS”), which describes the rights,
protections, and legal remedies available to prisoners concerning their incarceration.
B. Defendants’ Unconstitutional Policies and Practices
19.

Defendants’ mail policy (the “Policy”) states the following:

Occupant Mail
Occupants are permitted to receive letters, non-Polaroid photographs (4 x 6 or less), cashier's checks, and money
orders through the United States Postal Service.
Incoming occupant mail must be addressed as follows:
Full name of the occupant, booking number, housing unit, cell number
949 N. 9th Street
Milwaukee, WI 53233
All incoming occupant mail must meet the following criteria:

5
Case 2:24-cv-00981-NJ

Filed 08/02/24

Page 5 of 12

Document 1

1. Must have a return address including full name and full address, apartment number if applicable. Any mail
that does not include this information will be returned to sender or confiscated.
2. Sent utilizing UPS, Federal Express or the United States Postal Service.
3. Publications or newspapers shall be accepted only if they are mailed directly from the authorized
publishers or approved vendors to a named occupant. Pornographic and weapons related magazines are
contraband, and delivery will be refused.
4. Books must be mailed from the following approved publisher only: Penguin Random House.
5. Any material sent that is deemed inappropriate will be considered contraband and will be destroyed.
6. Greeting cards of any kind are not permitted. If a greeting card is received, the occupant will receive a
copy of the greeting card and then the greeting card will be secured in the occupant’s property.
7. No packages will be accepted from online shopping stores.
8. Mail received for an occupant no longer in custody will be returned to the sender.
All incoming mail will be scanned for contraband prior to delivery.
The Policy is posted on the Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, webpage at
https://county.milwaukee.gov/EN/Sheriff/Divisions/Detention-Services (accessed July 25, 2024).
The Policy is both unconstitutional on its face and as applied.
20.

By restricting all books and magazines not sent by publisher, Penguin Random

House or approved vendors, Defendants ban books and magazines sent by HRDC to prisoners at
the Jail. Accordingly, Defendants’ publication policy and practice violates HRDC’s rights under
the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
21.

Furthermore, Defendants engage in policies and practices that fail to provide

senders of censored mail notice and opportunity to appeal the censorship of the mail to the
intended prisoner. Thus, such policies and practices violate HRDC’s Fourteenth Amendment
rights to due process.
22.

Between January 10, 2021 and July 23, 2024, HRDC sent books, magazines,

court rulings, informational brochures, and correspondence to individuals confined at the Jail.

6
Case 2:24-cv-00981-NJ

Filed 08/02/24

Page 6 of 12

Document 1

23.

Between May 14, 2022 and April 9, 2024, fifty-eight (58) of those items were

returned to the HRDC by the Jail. The items returned were addressed to individuals confirmed to
still be in custody of the Jail on the day the HRDC received the returned mail.
24.

The fifty-eight (58) returned items consisted of: fifty-two (52) books (forty-three

(43) PYHS, eight (8) Prisoners’ Guerilla Handbook, and one (1) Prisoner’s Self-Help Litigation
Manual); two (2) copies of Prison Legal News; one (1) copy of Criminal Legal News; two (2)
Info Packs (brochures about HRDC, magazines, and books); and one (1) piece of correspondence
inquiring about potential censorship.
25.

Many of the rejected items were returned to HRDC marked “RETURN TO

SENDER.” Other items were not returned, and HRDC received no notice from the Jail that the
items had been rejected.
26.

Defendants failed to provide HRDC any notice of opportunity to appeal these

censorship decisions.
27.

Because of Defendants’ actions as described above, 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 message; frustration of HRDC’s
non-profit organizational mission; the loss of potential subscribers and customers; and, the
inability to recruit new subscribers and supporters.
28.

Defendants, and other agents of the Jail, are responsible for or personally

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

7
Case 2:24-cv-00981-NJ

Filed 08/02/24

Page 7 of 12

Document 1

29.

Defendants’ actions and inactions were and are impermissibly motivated, and

were and are all committed under color of law with deliberate indifference to HRDC’s rights.
30.

Plaintiff will continue to send its books and magazines to subscribers, customers,

and other individuals imprisoned at the Jail.
31.

Defendants’ unconstitutional policy, practices, and customs continue to violate

HRDC’s rights, and they were and are the moving force behind the injuries HRDC suffered as a
direct result of the constitutional violations. As a result, HRDC has no adequate remedy at law.
32.

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 hardship favors
Plaintiff and the public interest will be served by granting injunctive and declaratory relief.
33.

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

respect to written speech protected by the Constitution will not have any significant impact on
the Jail, its staff, prisoners, or the public.
34.

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

Defendants from refusing to deliver publications from HRDC and other senders not associated
with publisher, Penguin Random House, without legal justification, and prohibiting Defendants
from censoring mail without due process of law.
CLAIMS
COUNT I – 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Violation of the First Amendment (Free Speech)
35.

HRDC re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 34 of

the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
36.

The acts described above constitute violations of HRDC’s right to communicate

with incarcerated individuals under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
8
Case 2:24-cv-00981-NJ

Filed 08/02/24

Page 8 of 12

Document 1

37.

Defendants’ conduct was objectively unreasonable, arbitrary, and undertaken

recklessly, intentionally, willfully, with malice, and with deliberate indifference to the rights of
others.
38.

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.
39.

Defendants’ acts described above have caused damages to HRDC, and if not

enjoined, will continue to damage HRDC.
40.

HRDC seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and nominal and compensatory

damages against all Defendants. HRDC seeks punitive damages against the individual
Defendants in their individual capacities.
COUNT II – 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process)
41.

HRDC re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 40 of

the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
42.

Because HRDC has a liberty interest in communicating with prisoners, HRDC has

a right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to receive notice of and an
opportunity to challenge Defendants’ decision to censor HRDC’s written speech.
43.

Defendants’ policies and practices fail to provide HRDC and other senders with

adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.
44.

Defendants’ conduct was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken

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

9
Case 2:24-cv-00981-NJ

Filed 08/02/24

Page 9 of 12

Document 1

45.

HRDC’s inquiries 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.
46.

Defendants’ acts described above have caused damages to the HRDC, and if not

enjoined, will continue to cause damage to the HRDC.
47.

HRDC seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and nominal compensatory

damages against all defendants. HRDC seeks punitive damage against the individual Defendants
in their individual capacities.
COUNT III – 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Vagueness)
48.

HRDC re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraph’s 1 through 47 of

the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
49.

Defendants’ mail policy fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair

notice of what is prohibited or permitted, and includes contradictory provisions.
50.

Defendants have enforced, or caused the enforcement of, the Jail’s permissively

vague and overbroad mail policy to reject HRDC’s publications.
51.

Defendants’ enforcement of the mail policy has caused harm to HRDC by, among

other things, preventing HRDC from sending its publications to prisoners held in the Jail.
52.

HRDC seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and nominal and compensatory

damage against all Defendants. HRDC seeks punitive damages against the individual Defendants
in their individual capacities.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests relief as follows:
53. A declaration that Defendants’ policies and practices violate the Constitution.
10
Case 2:24-cv-00981-NJ

Filed 08/02/24

Page 10 of 12

Document 1

54. A preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Defendants from continuing to
violate the Constitution, and providing other equitable relief.
55. Nominal damages for each violation of the HRDC’s rights by the Defendants.
56. Compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial.
57. Punitive damages against the individual Defendants in an amount to be proved at
trial.
58. Costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and under other
applicable law.
59. Any other such relief that this Court deems just and equitable.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, Human Rights Defense Center, by and through its attorneys, hereby demands a
trial by jury pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) on all issues so triable.
Dated: August 2, 2024

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Brian C. Spahn
Brian C. Spahn
State Bar No. 1060080
Theresa M. Correa McMichen
State Bar No. 1122184
GODFREY & KAHN, S.C.
833 E. Michigan St., Suite 1800
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 273-3500
Facsimile: (414) 273-5198
bspahn@gklaw.com
tcorreamcmichen@gklaw.com
Jonathan Picard*
Florida Bar No.: 105477
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER
P.O. Box 1151
Lake Worth, FL 33460
Telephone: (561) 360-2523
11

Case 2:24-cv-00981-NJ

Filed 08/02/24

Page 11 of 12

Document 1

Facsimile: (561) 828-8166
jpicard@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
Attorneys for Plaintiff Human Rights
Defense Center
*Pro hac vice application to be filed

31587202.1

12
Case 2:24-cv-00981-NJ

Filed 08/02/24

Page 12 of 12

Document 1