Skip navigation

Prison Legal News v. Corrections Corporation of America, Censorship Complaint, Arizona, 2009

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
1
2
3
4

SANFORD JAY ROSEN – Cal. Bar No. 62566*
BLAKE THOMPSON – Cal. Bar No. 255600*
ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP
315 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104-1823
Telephone: (415) 433-6830
Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
Email:
srosen@rbg-law.com

5
6
7
8
9

DANIEL J. POCHODA – Ariz. Bar. No 021979
ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
77 East Columbus Street, Suite 205
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Telephone: (602) 650-1854
Email:
dpochoda@acluaz.org

12

DANIEL E. MANVILLE – Mich. Bar No. P39731*
DANIEL E. MANVILLE P.C.
Post Office Box 20321
Ferndale, Michigan 48220-0321
Telephone: (248) 890-4720
Facsimile: (248) 556-5598
Email:
daniel.manville@gmail.com

13

* Pro Hac Vice Application to be filed

14

Attorneys for Plaintiff

10
11

15
16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

18
19

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the Human
Rights Defense Center, a Washington non-profit
charitable corporation,

20
21
22
23
24
25

Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, a Maryland corporation; DAREN
SWENSON, CCA Regional Director of
Operations; TODD THOMAS, Warden, Saguaro
Correctional Center; BEN GRIEGO, Assistant
Warden, Saguaro Correctional Center; MARCO
LOPEZ, Chief of Security, Saguaro Correctional
Center; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND ARIZONA
CONSTITUTIONS; SUMMONS
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

26
Defendants.
27
28

[297107-10]

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND ARIZONA CONSTITUTIONS; SUMMONS - CASE NO.

1
2

INTRODUCTION
1.

Plaintiff PRISON LEGAL NEWS brings this civil rights action against Defendants

3

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) and the Arizona Constitution to enjoin

4

Defendants from barring prisoners from receiving books and publications sent to them by

5

Plaintiff, and for damages. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ actions violate its rights under the

6

First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as the Arizona

7

Constitution, and seeks damages to be proven at trial, and injunctive and declaratory relief.

8
9

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.

This lawsuit is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against all Defendants

10

for actions under color of state law in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

11

United States Constitution, and pursuant to Sections 4, 6, and 13 of Article 2 of the Arizona

12

Constitution. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3)

13

to redress deprivation, under color of law, of rights secured by the Constitution of the United

14

States. The Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims

15

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28

16

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 57, and is further empowered to grant injunctive

17

relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.

18
19
20

3.

This Court also has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, in that this action

involves citizens of different states and involves an amount in controversy of more than $75,000.
4.

Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a

21

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this

22

district.

23
24

THE PARTIES
5.

Plaintiff PRISON LEGAL NEWS (“PLN”) is a project of the Human Rights

25

Defense Center, a non-profit, charitable Washington state corporation that is tax-exempt under

26

IRS Code § 501(c)(3) with its office in Seattle, Washington. Plaintiff publishes a monthly

27

journal titled Prison Legal News, and also publishes, sells, and distributes books on a variety of

28

criminal justice, human rights, and self-help issues. PLN has approximately 7,000 subscribers in
1

[297107-10]

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND ARIZONA CONSTITUTIONS; SUMMONS - CASE NO.

1

all fifty states and abroad. Approximately eighty (80) percent of PLN subscribers are state and

2

federal prisoners.

3
4
5

6.

Defendant CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA (“CCA”) is a

Maryland corporation with its corporate headquarters in Nashville, Tennessee.
7.

Defendant CCA, at all pertinent times mentioned herein, was a company doing

6

business in the state and District of Arizona and performing the traditionally and uniquely state

7

governmental function of operating the Saguaro Correctional Center (“Saguaro”), a prison,

8

through contractual relationships with the State of Hawaii and the State of Washington.

9

8.

Defendant DAREN SWENSON is the Managing Director of Division VII for

10

CCA. In that role, Mr. Swenson is responsible for overseeing the operations at CCA’s six

11

Arizona facilities. Mr. Swenson has been in that role since February 2008. Mr. Swenson was

12

also the Warden of the Saguaro Correctional Center from January 2007 to January 2008.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

9.

Defendant TODD THOMAS, at all pertinent times mentioned herein, was an

employee of CCA and the Warden of the Saguaro Correctional Center.
10.

Defendant BEN GRIEGO, at all pertinent times mentioned herein, was an

employee of CCA and the Assistant Warden of the Saguaro Correctional Center.
11.

Defendant MARCO LOPEZ, at all pertinent times mentioned herein, was an

employee of CCA and the Chief of Security at the Saguaro Correctional Center.
12.

Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as

20

DOES 1 through 100, and therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is

21

informed and believes and therefore alleges on information and belief, that each of them is

22

responsible in some manner for the injuries and damages alleged herein. Plaintiff therefore sues

23

DOES 1 through 100, by such fictitious names and will seek leave to amend this complaint to

24

add their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained.

25
26
27
28

[297107-10]

13.

At all relevant times, all Defendants were acting under color of state law, pursuant

to their authority as officials, agents, contractors or employees of state governmental agencies.
14.

At all relevant times, Defendants SWENSON, THOMAS, GRIEGO and LOPEZ

were acting within the scope of their employment as agents and employees of CCA.
2
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND ARIZONA CONSTITUTIONS; SUMMONS - CASE NO.

1
2

15.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each Defendant

acted in concert with and as an agent of each other Defendant.

3
4

FACTS
16.

At all relevant times, CCA has operated the Saguaro Correctional Center in Eloy,

5

Arizona. This facility houses prisoners from Hawaii and the state of Washington pursuant to

6

contracts with each state.

7

17.

Plaintiff publishes a monthly journal, Prison Legal News, and also distributes

8

books and other materials pertaining to the legal rights of prisoners and the conditions affecting

9

them. The monthly journal comprises writings from legal scholars, attorneys, prisoners and

10

news wire services. Each issue of the journal contains articles on recent court decisions, as well

11

as practical advice for prisoners on how to litigate and otherwise protect their legal rights. The

12

journal also includes regular columns designed to assist prisoners who are not represented by

13

counsel, including “Habeas Hints” and “Pro Se Tips and Tactics.”

14

18.

PLN’s purpose, as stated in its Articles of Incorporation, Article III, Part 6, is “to

15

educate prisoners and the public about the destructive nature of racism, sexism, and the economic

16

and social costs of prisons to society.”

17

19.

Plaintiff’s communications with prisoners constitute speech on matters of public

18

concern, and are thus entitled to the highest degree of protection under the First Amendment to

19

the Constitution of the United States and under Article 2, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution.

20

20.

Plaintiff currently has, and at all relevant times has had, numerous paid subscribers

21

who are prisoners in the custody of Saguaro. Approximately forty current subscribers to Prison

22

Legal News now reside at the Saguaro Correctional Center. A one-year print subscription costs

23

$24 for individuals who are incarcerated and $30 for individuals who are not incarcerated.

24

21.

Plaintiff is informed and believes that CCA policy and practice provides that the

25

Warden, or his designee, is responsible for reviewing publications to determine if they are

26

approved for delivery to prisoners.

27
28
3
[297107-10]

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND ARIZONA CONSTITUTIONS; SUMMONS - CASE NO.

1

22.

Plaintiff is informed and believes that Warden Thomas, Assistant Warden Griego

2

and Chief of Security Lopez all participated directly in implementing mail policies and practices.

3

On occasion, all three have signed paperwork denying challenges to mail policies or practices.

4

23.

Plaintiff has received numerous complaints from prisoners whose receipt of books

5

from Plaintiff has been blocked, or imminently will be blocked, pursuant to Saguaro’s censorship

6

policies. In 2008 and 2009, at least six Saguaro prisoners were prohibited from receiving books

7

sent to them by Plaintiff.

8

24.

On February 6, 2009, Plaintiff mailed a letter and a book to Saguaro prisoner

9

Damien Serrano through the United States Postal Service. Plaintiff has a delivery confirmation

10

slip that verifies that the package was delivered. On February 18, 2009, Mr. Serrano received a

11

notice titled “Correspondence/Package/Contraband Denial Form” stating that he had received

12

correspondence from Plaintiff that was being denied. On the form, under “reasons for denial,”

13

the box was checked for “other material which would, if communicated, create a serious danger

14

to the security of the facility.” A handwritten note stated that this was an “unauthorized book

15

from unapproved vendor.” Saguaro neither notified Plaintiff that the book had been censored nor

16

returned the book to Plaintiff. On information and belief, the book was destroyed by Saguaro

17

personnel.

18

25.

On February 6, 2009, Plaintiff mailed a letter and a book to Saguaro prisoner

19

Jefferson Pau through the United States Postal Service. Plaintiff has a delivery confirmation slip

20

that verifies that the package was delivered. On February 18, 2009, Mr. Pau received a notice

21

titled “Correspondence/Package/Contraband Denial Form” stating that he had received

22

correspondence from Plaintiff that was being denied. On the form, under “reasons for denial,”

23

the box was checked for “other material which would, if communicated, create a serious danger

24

to the security of the facility.” A handwritten note below stated “book not allowed also from

25

unapproved vendor.” Saguaro neither notified Plaintiff that the book had been censored nor

26

returned the book to Plaintiff. On information and belief, the book was destroyed by Saguaro

27

personnel.

28
4
[297107-10]

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND ARIZONA CONSTITUTIONS; SUMMONS - CASE NO.

1

26.

On February 6, 2009, Plaintiff mailed a letter and a book to Saguaro prisoner

2

Wendell Jenkins through the United States Postal Service. Plaintiff has a delivery confirmation

3

slip that verifies that the package was delivered. On February 18, 2009, Mr. Jenkins received a

4

notice titled “Correspondence/Package/Contraband Denial Form” stating that he had received

5

correspondence from Plaintiff that was being denied. On the form, under “reasons for denial,”

6

the box was checked for “other material which would, if communicated, create a serious danger

7

to the security of the facility.” A handwritten note stated that this was an “unauthorized book

8

from unapproved vendor.” Saguaro neither notified Plaintiff that the book had been censored nor

9

returned the book to Plaintiff. On information and belief, the book was destroyed by Saguaro

10

personnel.

11

27.

On February 6, 2009, Plaintiff mailed a letter and a book to Saguaro prisoner

12

Joseph Menor through the United States Postal Service. Plaintiff has a delivery confirmation slip

13

that verifies that the package was delivered. On February 18, 2009, Mr. Menor received a notice

14

titled “Correspondence/Package/Contraband Denial Form” stating that he had received

15

correspondence from Plaintiff that was being denied. On the form, under “reasons for denial,”

16

the box was checked for “other material which would, if communicated, create a serious danger

17

to the security of the facility.” A handwritten note stated that this was an “unauthorized book

18

from unapproved vendor.” Saguaro neither notified Plaintiff that the book had been censored nor

19

returned the book to Plaintiff. On information and belief, the book was destroyed by Saguaro

20

personnel.

21

28.

On November 24, 2008, Plaintiff mailed a letter and a book to Saguaro prisoner

22

Edmund Abordo through the United States Postal Service. Plaintiff has a delivery confirmation

23

slip that verifies that the package was delivered. Mr. Abordo never received the book. Saguaro

24

neither notified Plaintiff that the book had been censored nor returned the book to Plaintiff. On

25

information and belief, the book was destroyed by Saguaro personnel.

26

29.

On May 1, 2008, Plaintiff mailed a book to Saguaro prisoner Michael Samson

27

through the United States Postal Service. Plaintiff has a delivery confirmation slip that verifies

28

that the package was delivered. Mr. Samson never received the book. Saguaro neither notified
5

[297107-10]

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND ARIZONA CONSTITUTIONS; SUMMONS - CASE NO.

1

Plaintiff that the book had been censored nor returned the book to Plaintiff. On information and

2

belief, the book was destroyed by Saguaro personnel.

3

30.

In March 2008, Plaintiff mailed an order of books to Saguaro prisoner Keola Kanae

4

through the United States Postal Service. The books arrived at Saguaro on March 10, 2008.

5

Mr. Kanae was told by Saguaro staff he could not receive the books because Plaintiff was not an

6

approved vendor. Mr. Kanae eventually received his books in April 2008, but Mr. Kanae was

7

told by Saguaro staff that he could not order books from Plaintiff in the future because Plaintiff

8

was not an approved vendor.

9

31.

On December 25, 2007, Saguaro prisoner Joseph Menor attempted to order a two-

10

year subscription to Plaintiff’s monthly publication, Prison Legal News. When he filled out the

11

“Release of Funds Authorization and Approval” Form requesting the release of $36 for his

12

subscription, his request was denied. The January 3, 2008 denial stated that Prison Legal News

13

was “not an approved vendor.”

14

32.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that CCA policy and

15

practice has no provision for notice to the sender when mail is rejected. Defendants have never

16

provided Plaintiff with notice that any of its books or publications mailed to prisoners at Saguaro

17

have been withheld from prisoners, nor have Defendants provided Plaintiff with any opportunity

18

to be heard.

19

33.

Defendants’ actions, policies, regulations, and practices limiting the distribution of

20

Plaintiff’s books and publications to Saguaro prisoners through the United States mail are not

21

reasonably related to legitimate penological interests in that (1) they are not rationally related to a

22

legitimate and neutral governmental objective; (2) there are no alternative avenues that remain

23

open to Plaintiff to exercise its rights under the United States Constitution and the Arizona

24

Constitution to ensure that Saguaro prisoners receive its books and publications; (3)

25

accommodating Plaintiff’s First Amendment and Arizona Constitutional rights will have no

26

adverse impact on personnel, prisoners, or the allocation of public resources; and (4) ready

27

alternatives exist for Defendants to protect any legitimate interests.

28
6
[297107-10]

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND ARIZONA CONSTITUTIONS; SUMMONS - CASE NO.

1

34.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that CCA policy and

2

practice at Saguaro also prohibits prisoners from ordering and/or receiving books and

3

publications from vendors other than Barnes & Noble for any book that Barnes & Noble carries.

4

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that CCA policy recently changed to

5

allow Saguaro prisoners to order and receive a book from Amazon.com if a book is not available

6

from Barnes & Noble. Plaintiff’s books and publications are not sold or distributed through

7

Barnes & Noble, Amazon.com, or any other commercial source. Because PLN often distributes

8

books and publications to indigent prisoners at no cost to the prisoners, distributing books

9

through Barnes & Noble, Amazon.com, or another source would not be possible. CCA’s book

10

ordering policy is not reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest, but instead is an

11

exaggerated response by prison officials where other ready alternatives exist.

12

35.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that CCA policy and

13

practice complained of herein also prohibits prisoners from ordering and receiving hardcover

14

books and publications. Some of the books that Plaintiff distributes are hardcover books. CCA’s

15

prohibition of hardcover books is not reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest and

16

is an exaggerated response by prison officials where other ready alternatives exist.

17

36.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that CCA policy and

18

practice for Saguaro prisoners prohibits prisoners from receiving gift publications. Plaintiff

19

sometimes distributes books and publications to prisoners free of charge. This ban on gift

20

publications also does not allow friends and family members to order books and magazines on

21

behalf of prisoners. CCA’s gift publication policy and practice is not reasonably related to a

22

legitimate penological interest, but instead is an exaggerated response by prison officials where

23

other ready alternatives exist.

24

37.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that CCA policy and

25

practice provided for the rejection of the books or publications Plaintiff sent to prisoners solely

26

because they were sent from Plaintiff instead of an “approved” source such as Barnes and Noble

27

or Amazon. The books Plaintiff sells (including hardcover books) are accepted at prisons and

28

jails across the country as a matter of course, and have not created any security problems at these
7

[297107-10]

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND ARIZONA CONSTITUTIONS; SUMMONS - CASE NO.

1

institutions. Bans such as those imposed by defendants are unconstitutional. See, e.g. Ashker v.

2

California Dept. of Corrections, 350 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2003).

3

38.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that CCA policy and

4

practice is inconsistent as to whether subscription publications such as Plaintiff’s monthly

5

journal may be ordered by prisoners from publishers and vendors that are not on the list of

6

approved vendors. On at least one occasion, defendants arbitrarily rejected a prisoner’s request

7

for subscription to Plaintiff’s monthly journal by asserting that it was not an “approved vendor.”

8

CCA’s inconsistent policy and practice with respect to subscription publications is not

9

reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest and is an exaggerated response by prison

10
11

officials where other ready alternatives exist.
39.

Plaintiff has an interest, protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

12

United States Constitution and by Article 2, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, in

13

communicating with Saguaro prisoners who have requested or ordered books or publications.

14

Plaintiff has been harmed and continues to be harmed by Defendants’ interference with that

15

communication. Plaintiff has also been harmed and continues to be harmed by the loss of

16

revenue as Saguaro prisoners are deterred and prevented from ordering books from Plaintiff or

17

subscribing to Plaintiff’s monthly journal. Plaintiff has also been chilled in the exercise of its

18

First Amendment rights, insofar as it is reluctant to continue sending materials that may be

19

destroyed. Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights have been chilled in a different way as well:

20

because prisoner-subscribers could be disciplined for attempting to bring “contraband” into the

21

facility, Plaintiff is reluctant to send materials to its subscribers out of fear that its subscribers

22

will be punished.

23

40.

Defendants’ actions also violate Plaintiff’s rights to due process and equal

24

protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and

25

under Article 2, Sections 4 and 13 of the Arizona Constitution.

26

41.

Defendants continue to enforce the censorship policies and practices complained of

27

herein as of the date of this Complaint. Plaintiff is suffering irreparable harm as a result of

28

Defendants’ ongoing violations of its Constitutional rights, and therefore Plaintiff has no
8

[297107-10]

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND ARIZONA CONSTITUTIONS; SUMMONS - CASE NO.

1

adequate remedy at law. These violations are continuing and will continue until enjoined by this

2

Court.

3
4
5

42.

Defendants’ policies and practices complained of herein have been undertaken by

Defendants under color of state law.
43.

Defendants’ actions and inactions are motivated by evil motive and intent and are

6

committed with reckless and callous indifference to Plaintiff’s rights as protected by the United

7

States Constitution and the Arizona Constitution.

8

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

9

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(For Violations of the First Amendment, As Incorporated Through the Fourteenth
Amendment, Under Color Of State Law, Actionable Through 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

10
11
12
13

44.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the allegations

contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
45.

The censorship policies and practices complained of herein violate Plaintiff’s right

14

to freedom of expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States

15

Constitution, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

16

Constitution.

17

46.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct in violation of Plaintiff’s

18

First Amendment rights as set forth above, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, lost

19

business income, lost business good will, emotional distress, and a chilling effect on its First

20

Amendment rights.

21

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(For Violations of Article 2, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution
Under Color Of State Law)

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

[297107-10]

47.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the allegations

contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
48.

The censorship policies and practices complained of herein violate Plaintiff’s right

to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 2, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution.
49.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct in violation of Plaintiff’s

rights under the Arizona Constitution as set forth above, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to
9
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND ARIZONA CONSTITUTIONS; SUMMONS - CASE NO.

1

suffer, lost business income, lost business good will, emotional distress, and a chilling effect on

2

its Article 2, Section 6 rights.

3

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(For Violations of Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause
Under Color Of State Law, Actionable Through 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

4
5
6
7

50.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the allegations

contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
51.

Plaintiff is informed and believes that Plaintiff is being treated differently from

8

other similarly situated book vendors and publishers. This differential treatment is not narrowly

9

tailored to a compelling governmental interest. Nor is there any rational basis for Saguaro’s

10

decision to treat Plaintiff differently than other book vendors and publishers. Instead, this

11

distinction is arbitrary and irrational.

12

52.

By failing to treat Plaintiff similarly to other similarly situated book vendors and

13

publishers, Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiff of equal protection under

14

the laws, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

15

53.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct in violation of Plaintiff’s

16

rights as set forth above, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, lost business income, lost

17

business good will and emotional distress.

18
19
20
21
22

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(For Violations of the Equal Privileges Clause of Article 2, Section 13 of the Arizona
Constitution Under Color Of State Law)
54.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the allegations

contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
55.

Plaintiff is informed and believes that Plaintiff is being treated differently from

23

other similarly situated book vendors and publishers. This differential treatment is not narrowly

24

tailored to a compelling governmental interest. Nor is there any rational basis for Saguaro’s

25

decision to treat Plaintiff differently than other book vendors and publishers. Instead, this

26

distinction is arbitrary and irrational.

27
28

[297107-10]

56.

By failing to treat Plaintiff similarly to other similarly situated book vendors and

publishers, Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiff of equal protection under
10
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND ARIZONA CONSTITUTIONS; SUMMONS - CASE NO.

1

the laws, in violation of the Equal Privileges Clause of Article 2, Section 13 of the Arizona

2

Constitution.

3

57.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct in violation of Plaintiff’s

4

rights as set forth above, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, lost business income, lost

5

business good will and emotional distress.

6

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(For Violations of Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause
Under Color Of State Law, Actionable Through 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

7
8
9
10

58.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the allegations

contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
59.

By failing to give Plaintiff notice of the censorship of its books and publications,

11

and an opportunity to be heard with respect to that censorship, Defendants have deprived and

12

continue to deprive Plaintiff of liberty and property without due process of law, in violation of

13

the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

14

60.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct in violation of Plaintiff’s

15

rights as set forth above, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, lost business income, lost

16

business good will and emotional distress.

17
18

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(For Violations of the Due Process Clause in Article 2, Section 4 of the Arizona
Constitution)

19

61.

20
21

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the allegations

contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
62.

By failing to give Plaintiff notice of the censorship of its books and publications,

22

and an opportunity to be heard with respect to that censorship, Defendants have deprived and

23

continue to deprive Plaintiff of liberty and property without due process of law, in violation of

24

Article 2, Section 4 of the Arizona Constitution.

25

63.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct in violation of Plaintiff’s

26

rights as set forth above, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, lost business income, lost

27

business good will and emotional distress.

28
11
[297107-10]

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND ARIZONA CONSTITUTIONS; SUMMONS - CASE NO.

1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

The conduct previously alleged, unless and until enjoined by order of this Court, will

3

cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff. Further, a judicial declaration is necessary and

4

appropriate at this time so that all parties may know their respective rights and act accordingly.

5

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

6

1.

A declaration that Defendants’ actions, described herein, violate the First and

7

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as Article 2, Sections 4, 6 and

8

13 of the Arizona Constitution;

9

2.

An order enjoining all Defendants and their employees, agents, and any and all

10

persons acting in concert with them from further violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights under the

11

First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and under Article 2,

12

Sections 4, 6 and 13 of the Arizona Constitution;

13

3.

An order awarding actual damages in amounts to be proven at trial for violations of

14

rights protected by the United States Constitution and Arizona Constitution, or at least

15

nominal or presumed damages for each incident that violated plaintiffs’ rights; and punitive

16

damages in amounts to be proven at trial for each incident that violated plaintiffs rights.

17

4.

An order awarding Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and

18

costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, under the Arizona private attorney general doctrine, as recognized

19

in Arnold v. Arizona Dept. of Health Services, 775 P.2d 521 (Ariz. 1989), and any other

20

applicable law;

21

5.

An order awarding such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

22
23

Dated: September 2, 2009

Respectfully submitted,

24

ACLU Foundation of Arizona

25
By: /s/ Daniel J. Pochoda
DANIEL J. POCHODA
Attorney for Plaintiff

26
27
28
12
[297107-10]

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND ARIZONA CONSTITUTIONS; SUMMONS - CASE NO.

1
2

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a jury trial.

3
4

Dated: September 2, 2009

Respectfully submitted,

5

ACLU Foundation of Arizona

6
By: /s/ Daniel J. Pochoda
DANIEL J. POCHODA
Attorney for Plaintiff

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
[297107-10]

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND ARIZONA CONSTITUTIONS; SUMMONS - CASE NO.



 

Disciplinary Self-Help Litigation Manual

 

Federal Prison Handbook

 

Disciplinary Self-Help Litigation Manual

 

Federal Prison Handbook
Prisoner Education Guide