Case 3:25-cv-00361

Document 1

Filed 01/10/25

Page 1 of 17

1 SANFORD JAY ROSEN – 062566
ERNEST GALVAN – 196065
2 MARC J. SHINN-KRANTZ – 312968
ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
3 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, California 94105-1738
4 Telephone: (415) 433-6830
Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
srosen@rbgg.com
5 Email:
egalvan@rbgg.com
mshinn-krantz@rbgg.com
6
7 JONATHAN P. PICARD – Fla. Bar No. 105477
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER
8 P.O. Box 1151
Lake Worth, Florida 33460
9 Telephone: (561) 360-2523
Facsimile: (561) 828-8166
jpicard@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
10 Email:
* Pro Hac Vice Application to be filed
11
Attorneys for Plaintiff
12 HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

16
17 HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

Case No. 3:25-cv-00361

18

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1,
AND THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION

Plaintiff,

19

v.

20 COUNTY OF SONOMA; EDDIE
ENGRAM, Sheriff, individually and in his
21 official capacity; MELISSA PARMENTER,
Detention Division Operations Captain,
22 individually and in her official capacity; and
JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10, Staff,
23 individually and in their official capacities,
24

Defendants.

25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:25-cv-00361
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1, AND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

[]

Case 3:25-cv-00361

Document 1

Page 2 of 17

INTRODUCTION

1
2

Filed 01/10/25

1.

Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center (“HRDC” or “Plaintiff”) brings this

3 action to enjoin Defendants from censoring publications and correspondence that it mails
4 to incarcerated persons at the Sonoma County Main Adult Detention Facility (the
5 “Detention Facility”). Defendants have adopted and implemented mail policies, practices,
6 and customs that unconstitutionally prohibit delivery of publications and correspondence
7 mailed by Plaintiff to persons incarcerated at the Detention Facility, and that deny due
8 process of law to senders, like Plaintiff, whose mail is censored, by failing to provide
9 adequate notice and an opportunity to challenge each instance of censorship. Defendants’
10 actions violate Plaintiff’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
11 States Constitution; Article I, Section 2 and Article I, Section 7 of the California
12 Constitution; and the Bane Act, California Civil Code § 52.1. Plaintiff seeks injunctive
13 and declaratory relief, and damages in an amount to be proven at trial pursuant to 42
14 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

15
16

2.

This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), as

17 this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and pursuant to 28
18 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights), as this action seeks redress for civil rights violations under 42
19 U.S.C. § 1983.
20

3.

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

21 within this judicial district and the events giving rise to the claims asserted herein all
22 occurred within this judicial district.
23

4.

Plaintiff’s claims for relief under federal law are brought pursuant to 42

24 U.S.C. § 1983, which authorizes actions to redress the deprivation, under color of state
25 law, of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments
26 to the United States Constitution and laws of the United States.
27

5.

This Court has jurisdiction over claims seeking declaratory and injunctive

28 relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of
[]
Case No. 3:25-cv-00361
1
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1, AND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

Case 3:25-cv-00361

Document 1

Filed 01/10/25

Page 3 of 17

1 Civil Procedure, as well as nominal and compensatory damages, against all Defendants,
2 and punitive damages against the individual defendants in their personal capacities.
3

6.

Plaintiff’s claim for attorneys’ fees and costs for its federal claims is

4 predicated upon 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which authorizes the award of attorneys’ fees and costs
5 to prevailing plaintiffs in actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
6

7.

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims

7 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as they arise from the same case or controversy as Plaintiff’s
8 claims under federal law.
9

8.

Plaintiff’s claims for relief under state law are predicated upon the Bane Act

10 (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1), which authorizes actions to protect the exercise or enjoyment of
11 rights secured under federal or California law, as well as upon the direct causes of action to
12 enforce constitutional rights guaranteed under Article I, Section 2 and Article I, Section 7
13 of the California Constitution.
14

9.

Plaintiff’s claim for attorneys’ fees and costs under state law is predicated

15 upon California Civil Code § 52.1, which authorizes the award of attorneys’ fees and costs
16 in an action brought under that statute, and California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5,
17 which authorizes the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to successful plaintiffs whose
18 actions vindicate important rights affecting the public interest.
19

10.

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

20 Defendants as described herein acted with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and/or
21 with the intent to injure, vex, annoy and harass Plaintiff, and subjected Plaintiff to cruel
22 and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights with the intention of
23 causing Plaintiff injury and depriving it of its constitutional rights. As a result of the
24 foregoing, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages against the individual
25 Defendants.
26
27

EXHAUSTION OF PRE-LAWSUIT PROCEDURES FOR STATE LAW CLAIMS
11.

Plaintiff submitted a state tort claim for damages to Defendant COUNTY OF

28 SONOMA on July 18, 2024, and an amended claim on August 14, 2024. Defendant
[]
Case No. 3:25-cv-00361
2
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1, AND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

Case 3:25-cv-00361

Document 1

Filed 01/10/25

Page 4 of 17

1 COUNTY OF SONOMA notified Plaintiff that the amended claim was rejected by letter
2 dated August 30, 2024.
PARTIES

3
12.

4

Plaintiff HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER is a not-for-profit

5 charitable organization recognized under § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code,
6 incorporated in the state of Washington and with principal offices in Boynton Beach,
7 Florida. For over thirty-four years, HRDC has focused its mission on public education,
8 advocacy and outreach to incarcerated persons and the public about the economic and
9 social costs of prisons to society. HRDC accomplishes its mission through advocacy,
10 litigation, and the publication and/or distribution of books, magazines, and other informa11 tion concerning prisons and prisoner rights. Prison Legal News is a wholly-owned project
12 and publishing arm of HRDC. Through its publishing project, HRDC engages in core
13 protected speech and expressive conduct on matters of public concern including: the
14 operation of correctional facilities; prison and jail conditions; the health and safety of
15 incarcerated persons; and the constitutional and human rights of incarcerated persons.
16 HRDC publishes and distributes two monthly magazines covering corrections and criminal
17 legal news and analysis. HRDC also publishes and distributes books about the criminal
18 justice system and legal issues affecting incarcerated persons, which HRDC distributes by
19 mail to incarcerated persons, lawyers, courts, libraries, and the public throughout the
20 United States.
21

13.

Defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA (the “County”) is a political subdivision

22 of the State of California organized and existing under the laws of California. The County
23 is, and at all relevant times herein was, responsible for the policies, procedures, customs,
24 and practices of the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office and its employees and agents. The
25 Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office is and was responsible for adopting and implementing
26 mail policies, procedures, practices, and customs governing incoming mail for incarcerated
27 persons at the Detention Facility.
28

14.
[]

Defendant EDDIE ENGRAM is the Sheriff of Sonoma County, and he has
Case No. 3:25-cv-00361
3

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1, AND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

Case 3:25-cv-00361

Document 1

Filed 01/10/25

Page 5 of 17

1 held that position since January 2023. Defendant ENGRAM is employed by, and is an
2 agent of, the County and the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office. He is responsible for
3 overseeing the management and operations of the Detention Facility. He is responsible for
4 the hiring, screening, training, supervision, discipline, counseling and control of the
5 personnel at the Detention Facility who interpret and apply mail policies, procedures,
6 practices, and customs. As Sheriff, Defendant ENGRAM is a final policymaker for the
7 County with respect to the operation of the Detention Facility, and he is responsible for
8 policies, procedures, practices, and customs governing incoming mail for incarcerated
9 persons. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.
10

15.

Defendant MELISSA PARMENTER is the Operations Captain for the

11 Sonoma County Sheriff’s Detention Division, and she has held this position since January
12 2023. PARMENTER is employed by, and is an agent of, the County and the Sonoma
13 County Sheriff’s Office. She is responsible for overseeing the management and operations
14 of the Detention Facility. She is responsible for the hiring, screening, training,
15 supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of the personnel at the Detention Facility
16 who interpret and apply mail policies, procedures, practices, and customs. As Operations
17 Captain, PARMENTER is a policymaker for the County with respect to operation of the
18 Detention Facility, and she is responsible for policies, procedures, practices, and customs
19 governing incoming mail for incarcerated persons. She is sued in her individual and
20 official capacities.
21

16.

The true names and identities of Defendants DOES 1 through 10 are

22 presently unknown to HRDC. Each of Defendants DOES 1 through 10 are or were
23 employed by and are or were agents of the County during some or all of the relevant
24 timeframe. Each of Defendants DOES 1 through 10 were personally involved in the
25 adoption and/or implementation of the mail policies, procedures, practices, and customs at
26 the Detention Facility, and/or were responsible for the hiring, screening, training, retention,
27 supervision, discipline, counseling, and/or control of the Detention Facility staff who
28 interpret and implement these mail policies, procedures, practices, and customs. They are
[]
Case No. 3:25-cv-00361
4
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1, AND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

Case 3:25-cv-00361

Document 1

Filed 01/10/25

Page 6 of 17

1 sued in their individual and official capacities. HRDC will seek to amend this Complaint
2 when the true names and identities of Defendants DOES 1 through 10 have been
3 ascertained.
4

17.

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

5 herein were taken under the authority and color of state law.
6

18.

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

7 course and scope of their employment as agents and/or employees of the County.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8
9

19.

For more than thirty-four years, the focus of HRDC’s mission has been

10 public education, advocacy and outreach on behalf of, and for the purpose of assisting,
11 incarcerated persons who seek legal redress for infringements of their constitutionally
12 guaranteed and other basic human rights. HRDC’s mission, if realized, has a salutary
13 effect on public safety.
14

20.

To accomplish its mission, HRDC publishes and distributes books,

15 magazines, and other materials containing news and analysis about prisons, jails and other
16 detention facilities, the rights of incarcerated persons, court rulings, management of prison
17 facilities, prison and jail conditions, and other matters pertaining to the rights and/or
18 interests of incarcerated persons. HRDC’s publications contain political speech and social
19 commentary, which are core First Amendment rights and are entitled to the highest
20 protection afforded by the United States Constitution and the California Constitution.
21

21.

Sending publications through the mail to incarcerated persons is essential to

22 accomplishing the mission of HRDC. The primary aim of HRDC is to communicate with
23 incarcerated persons about developments in the law and protection of one’s health and
24 personal safety while in prison or jail. Reading materials enable incarcerated persons to
25 engage in productive activity rather than sitting idle, thus helping to avoid conflicts and
26 incidents of violence in correctional facilities and encouraging lawful methods of dispute
27 resolution. In addition, reading allows incarcerated persons to keep their minds sharp,
28 helping them prepare to become productive citizens when released back into society.
[]
Case No. 3:25-cv-00361
5
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1, AND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

Case 3:25-cv-00361

1

22.

Document 1

Filed 01/10/25

Page 7 of 17

HRDC publishes and distributes an award-winning monthly magazine titled

2 Prison Legal News: Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights (“Prison Legal News”), which
3 contains news and analysis about correctional facilities, the rights of incarcerated persons,
4 court opinions, prison and jail conditions, excessive force, and religious freedom. Prison
5 Legal News is published on newsprint bound by two small staples, and is 72 pages long.
6

23.

HRDC also publishes and distributes a second monthly magazine titled

7 Criminal Legal News: Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights (“Criminal Legal News”),
8 which contains news and analysis about individual rights, court rulings, and other criminal
9 legal-related issues. Criminal Legal News is also published on newsprint bound by two
10 small staples, and was 48 pages long, but has more recently expanded to 56 pages long.
11

24.

HRDC also publishes and/or distributes several different soft-cover books on

12 criminal justice, health, and legal issues that are of interest to incarcerated persons and
13 others. HRDC publishes and distributes the Prisoners’ Guerilla Handbook: A Guide to
14 Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada (“Prisoners’ Handbook”),
15 which provides information on enrolling at accredited higher educational, vocational and
16 training schools. HRDC does not publish, but is the sole national distributor of Protecting
17 Your Health and Safety (“PYHS”), which describes the rights, protections and legal
18 remedies available to persons concerning their health and safety while they are
19 incarcerated.
20

25.

In addition to its publications, HRDC also communicates with incarcerated

21 persons through the United States Postal Service by mailing them: (a) informational
22 brochure packets, which contain a brochure and subscription order form, a book list, and a
23 published books brochure (each of which is a single page); (b) copies of judicial opinions
24 of import to incarcerated persons, which are marked “Court Ruling;” and (c) letters that
25 provide pertinent information about HRDC’s publications and related topics, including
26 subscription renewal letters and follow-up letters to ascertain whether HRDC’s mailings
27 have been delivered as addressed. HRDC encloses a self-addressed, stamped envelope
28 with its informational brochure packets and subscription renewal letters, but does not
[]
Case No. 3:25-cv-00361
6
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1, AND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

Case 3:25-cv-00361

Document 1

Filed 01/10/25

Page 8 of 17

1 enclose extra envelopes or stamps with the informational brochure packets, judicial
2 opinions, or other letters that it mails to incarcerated persons.
3

26.

Since 1990, HRDC has sent its publications and books by mail to

4 incarcerated persons and law librarians in more than 3,000 correctional facilities in all fifty
5 states, including at death row housing units and “supermax” prisons, including the federal
6 Administrative Maximum Facility at Florence, Colorado, which is known as the most
7 secure prison in the United States. The publications and books that HRDC distributes are
8 mailed to hundreds of persons incarcerated in California jails and prisons, including at San
9 Diego County’s Central Jail, Vista Detention Facility, East Mesa Detention Facility, South
10 Bay Detention Facility, and George F. Bailey Detention Facility; the Los Angeles County
11 Jails, including the Twin Towers Correctional Facility; Orange County’s Theo Lacy
12 Facility; San Bernardino County’s West Valley Detention Center; Riverside County’s
13 Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility; Sacramento County’s Rio Cosumnes Correctional
14 Center; the Fresno County Jail; the Humboldt County Correctional Facility; the Santa
15 Clara County Main Jail; Alameda County’s Santa Rita Jail and Glenn E. Dyer Detention
16 Facility; Contra Costa County’s Martinez Detention Facility; the Butte County Jail; the
17 San Joaquin County Jail; the Ventura County Jail; the San Luis Obispo County Jail; the
18 Santa Barbara County Jail; the Tulare County Main Jail; the Tehama County Jail; Placer
19 County’s Auburn Jail; the Napa County Jail; the Madera County Jail; and at the 32 prisons
20 run by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and the
21 California Department of State Hospitals’ (“DSH”) secure hospital facilities throughout the
22 state. In its more than 34-year history, HRDC is not aware of and has never been notified
23 of any security incident caused by any of its publications or correspondence at any jail,
24 prison, or other detention facility.
25

27.

The Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office Custody Manual, dated December 30,

26 2024 (“Custody Manual”), is available on the public website of the Sonoma County
27 Sheriff’s Office at https://www.sonomasheriff.org/policies-and-training (last visited
28 January 9, 2025), which includes a hyperlink to a PDF of the Custody Manual at
[]
Case No. 3:25-cv-00361
7
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1, AND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

Case 3:25-cv-00361

Document 1

Filed 01/10/25

Page 9 of 17

1 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/542ec317e4b0d41ade8801fb/t/67747a4fa9dce32351a
2 320bf/1735686741151/RELEASE_20241230_T152025_Sonoma+County+Sheriff%27s+O
3 ffice+Custody+Manual.pdf (last visited January 9, 2025). Defendants’ current policy on
4 incoming mail for persons incarcerated at the Detention Facility, Policy 1009 (“Mail
5 Policy”), is recorded on pages 378 through 382 of the Custody Manual.
6

28.

7
9

When mail is found to be inappropriate in accordance with the provisions of
this policy or when an incarcerated person is sent material that is not
prohibited by law but is considered contraband by the facility, the material
may be returned to the sender or held in the incarcerated person’s property to
be given to the incarcerated person upon release.

10

…

11

Notices should be sent to the sender of censored correspondence or
publications, even when the sender is the editor or publisher. A single
notification may be sent if the publication is received by multiple
incarcerated persons.

8

12
13

Defendants’ Mail Policy provides, in pertinent part:

…

14

Unless otherwise in conflict with this policy and prohibited by the Facility
Manager, incarcerated persons are permitted to purchase, receive, and read
any book, newspaper, periodical, or writing accepted for distribution by the
U.S. Postal Service (15 CCR 1066(a)).

15
16

Publications, magazines, or newspapers shall be accepted only if they are
mailed directly from the publisher to a named incarcerated person.

17
18

…

19

The Office may reject magazines, periodicals, and other materials that may
inhibit the reasonable safety, security, and discipline in the daily operation of
this facility. Generally, books, newspapers, and magazines are accepted only
if they are sent directly by the publisher. Materials that may be rejected
include but are not limited to (15 CCR 1066(a)):

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[]

•

Materials that advocate violence or a security breach.

•

Literature that could incite racial unrest.

•

Sexually explicit material, including pornographic magazines, nude pictures,
or pictures or descriptions of sexually explicit activities.

•

Obscene publications or writings and mail containing information
concerning where or how such matter may be obtained; any material that
would have a tendency to incite murder, arson, riot, violent racism, or any
other form of violence; any material that would have a tendency to incite
crimes against children; any material concerning unlawful gambling or
Case No. 3:25-cv-00361
8

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1, AND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

Case 3:25-cv-00361

Filed 01/10/25

Page 10 of 17

unlawful lottery; any material containing information on the manufacture or
use of weapons, narcotics, or explosives or any other unlawful activity.

1
2

Document 1

•

Material that could lead to sexual aggression or an offensive environment for
incarcerated persons.

4

•

Material that could create a hostile or offensive work environment.

5

•

Any material with content that could reasonably demonstrate a legitimate
government interest in rejecting the material.

3

6
7
8
9
10

Staff shall notify the Watch Commander whenever a decision is made to
reject books, magazines, or periodicals. The Facility Manager or the
authorized designee will be responsible for making the final decision as to
the specific magazines, periodicals, and other materials that will be
prohibited within this facility.
29.

In addition to Defendants’ Mail Policy, another document entitled Detention

11 Facilities Mail Guidelines (“Mail Guidelines”) is available on the public website of the
12 Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office at https://www.sonomasheriff.org/inmate-mail-guidelines
13 (last visited December 19, 2024), which includes a hyperlink to a PDF of the Mail
14 Guidelines at
15 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/542ec317e4b0d41ade8801fb/t/5e961fb66872ea5a8c3
16 74e9d/1586896822388/mail+guidelines.pdf (last visited December 19, 2024).
17 Defendants’ Mail Guidelines provide, in pertinent part:

20

New books deemed to be appropriate will be accepted from Amazon and
Barnes & Noble only. Used books, hardcover books and books with spiral
bindings will not be accepted. Magazines and other publications including
periodicals and newspapers that are deemed to be appropriate will be
accepted from the publisher.

21

30.

18
19

Defendants’ Mail Policy is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, and is

22 unduly broad and vague. This is especially true because the books and magazines
23 published and/or distributed by HRDC cover topics of great public concern and contain
24 core protected speech, including political speech and social commentary, and educational
25 information relating to the rights of incarcerated persons, pertinent legal cases, and
26 incarcerated persons’ health and safety, and are thus entitled to the highest protection
27 afforded by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the California
28 Constitution. There is no legitimate penological justification for Defendants to refuse to
[]
Case No. 3:25-cv-00361
9
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1, AND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

Case 3:25-cv-00361

Document 1

Filed 01/10/25

Page 11 of 17

1 accept books and other publications for delivery at the Detention Facility unless they are
2 “sent directly by the publisher,” and the grounds whereby Defendants may reject mailed
3 publications listed in Defendants’ Mail Policy are overly broad and/or too vague for a
4 sender to understand what is prohibited and what is permissible. Defendants’ Mail Policy
5 also does not provide for any appeals process by which a sender may challenge a decision
6 by Defendants to reject publications or other mailings for delivery to incarcerated persons
7 at the Detention Facility.
8

31.

Defendants’ Mail Guidelines are unconstitutional on their face and as applied.

9 By restricting all books not sent by vendors Amazon and Barnes & Noble, Defendants ban
10 books sent by HRDC to prisoners at the Detention Facility. Accordingly, Defendants’ Mail
11 Guidelines also violate HRDC’s rights to free speech afforded by the First Amendment to
12 the United States Constitution and the California Constitution.
13

32.

Furthermore, Defendants fail to provide senders of censored mail notice and

14 an opportunity to appeal censorship decisions. Thus, such policies and practices violate
15 HRDC’s Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process.
16

33.

Between October 2023 and October 2024, HRDC sent books, magazines,

17 court rulings, informational brochures, and correspondence to individuals confined at the
18 Detention Facility. During that time period, forty-seven (47) of those items were returned
19 to the HRDC by the Detention Facility. The items returned were addressed to individuals
20 confirmed to still be in custody of the Detention Facility on the day HRDC received the
21 returned mail.
22

34.

The forty-seven (47) returned items consisted of: twenty-seven (27)

23 informational brochures; nine (9) issues of Prison Legal News; eight (8) issues of Criminal
24 Legal News; and three (3) follow-up letters.
25

35.

Many of the rejected items were returned to HRDC marked in various ways,

26 including the abbreviations “RTS,” “MTC,” “NIC,” and “ANK” handwritten in ink, and/or
27 with an ink stamp containing the words “RETURN TO SENDER NO INMATE
28 SOLICITATIONS.”
10

Case No. 3:25-cv-00361
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1, AND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

[]

Case 3:25-cv-00361

1

36.

Document 1

Filed 01/10/25

Page 12 of 17

Defendants failed to provide HRDC with notice and an opportunity to appeal

2 these censorship decisions. Other than the vague markings on the outside of items returned
3 via the United States Postal Service’s Return to Sender service, Defendants did not provide
4 HRDC with notice of the reason any mailing was rejected. Nowhere on the returned items
5 of mail was notice provided of a right to challenge the censorship decision, or any
6 information on whether or how HRDC could appeal Defendants’ decision to refuse to deliver
7 the publication or correspondence to the intended recipient. Furthermore, Defendants did
8 not return any of the two hundred and three (203) additional items that were properly
9 addressed to people incarcerated at the Detention Facility leaving HRDC without any
10 information as to whether those items were censored and why, or if they were delivered why
11 the Detention Facility delivered only those items but not others.
12

37.

Because of Defendants’ actions as described above, HRDC has suffered

13 damages, and will continue to suffer damages, including, but not limited to: the suppression
14 of HRDC’s speech; the impediment of HRDC’s ability to disseminate its message;
15 frustration of HRDC’s non-profit organizational mission; the loss of potential subscribers
16 and customers; and, the inability to recruit new subscribers and supporters; the loss of
17 reputation; and the cost of printing, handling, mailing, and staff time, among other damages.
18

38.

Defendants, and other agents of the Detention Facility, are responsible for or

19 personally participated in, creating and implementing these unconstitutional polices,
20 practices, and customs, or for ratifying and adopting them. Further, Defendants are
21 responsible for training and supervising the employees of the Detention Facility, whose
22 conduct has injured and continues to injure HRDC.
23

39.

Defendants’ actions and inactions were and are impermissibly motivated,

24 and were and are all committed under color of state law with deliberate indifference to
25 HRDC’s rights.
26

40.

Defendants’ actions and inactions were and are undertaken with reckless

27 disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and/or motivated by ill motive and intent, and were and are
28 all committed under color of law with deliberate indifference to HRDC’s rights.
[]
Case No. 3:25-cv-00361
11
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1, AND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

Case 3:25-cv-00361

1

41.

Document 1

Filed 01/10/25

Page 13 of 17

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

2 customers, and other individuals imprisoned at the Detention Facility.
3

42.

Defendants’ unconstitutional policy, practices, and customs continue to

4 violate HRDC’s rights, and they were and are the moving force behind the injuries HRDC
5 suffered as a direct result of the constitutional violations. As a result, HRDC has no adequate
6 remedy at law.
7

43.

Defendants’ conduct prohibiting or not delivering HRDC’s mailed

8 publications and correspondence to persons incarcerated at the Detention Facility violates
9 the First Amendment by censoring HRDC’s freedom of speech and expression, and has a
10 chilling effect on future speech and expression directed at the persons incarcerated at the
11 Detention Facility.
12

44.

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

13 Defendants from refusing to deliver publications from HRDC and other similarly-situated
14 senders not associated with Amazon or Barnes & Noble, without legal justification, and
15 prohibiting Defendants from censoring mail without due process of law.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violations of the First Amendment (Free Speech)—42 U.S.C. § 1983)

16
17

45.

18

HRDC re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 44

19 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
20

46.

Defendants’ acts described above constitute violations of HRDC’s right to

21 communicate with persons incarcerated at the Detention Facility under the First Amendment
22 to the United States Constitution.
23

47.

The conduct of Defendants was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken

24 recklessly, intentionally, willfully, with malice, and with deliberate indifference to the rights
25 of others.
26

48.

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

27 and proximately caused by the policies and practices of Defendants, which were and are the
28 moving force of the violations.
12

Case No. 3:25-cv-00361
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1, AND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

[]

Case 3:25-cv-00361

1

49.

Document 1

Filed 01/10/25

Page 14 of 17

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

2 enjoined, will continue to cause damage to HRDC.
3

50.

HRDC seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and nominal and compensatory

4 damages against all Defendants. HRDC also seeks punitive damages solely against the
5 individual Defendants in their individual capacities.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process)—42 U.S.C. § 1983)

6
7

51.

8

HRDC re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 50

9 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
10

52.

HRDC has a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in communicating with

11 persons incarcerated at the Detention Facility by sending publications and correspondence
12 to them via the United States Postal Service, a right clearly established under existing case
13 law.
14

53.

HRDC has a right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

15 to receive notice and an opportunity to object and/or appeal Defendants’ decisions to prevent
16 the publications and correspondence mailed by HRDC from reaching the incarcerated
17 persons at the Detention Facility to whom they were mailed.
18

54.

Defendants have failed to give HRDC sufficient notice of the censorship of its

19 publications and correspondence, and an opportunity to be heard with respect to that
20 censorship. In doing so, Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive HRDC of liberty
21 and property without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
22 United States Constitution.
23

55.

The conduct of Defendants was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken

24 recklessly, intentionally, willfully, with malice, and with deliberate indifference to the rights
25 of others.
26

56.

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

27 and proximately caused by the policies and practices of Defendants, which were and are the
28 moving force of the violations.
13

Case No. 3:25-cv-00361
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1, AND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

[]

Case 3:25-cv-00361

1

57.

Document 1

Filed 01/10/25

Page 15 of 17

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

2 enjoined, will continue to cause damage to HRDC.
3

58.

HRDC seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and nominal and compensatory

4 damages against all Defendants. HRDC also seeks punitive damages solely against the
5 individual Defendants in their individual capacities.
6
7
8

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation of the right to free speech—California Constitution Art. I, Sec. 2)
59.

HRDC re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58

9 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
10

60.

The acts described above constitute violations of HRDC’s speech rights under

11 Article 1, Section 2 of the California Constitution and have caused damage to HRDC, and
12 will continue to cause damage.
13

61.

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

14 and proximately caused by the policies and practices of Defendants, which were and are the
15 moving force of the violations.
16

62.

As a result of the conduct of Defendants, HRDC seeks declaratory and

17 injunctive relief against all Defendants.
18
19
20

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation of the right to due process —California Constitution Art. I, Sec. 7)
63.

HRDC re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 62

21 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
22

64.

By failing to give HRDC sufficient notice of the censorship of its publications

23 and correspondence and an opportunity to be heard with respect to that censorship,
24 Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive HRDC of liberty and property without
25 due process of law, in violation of Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution, and
26 have caused damage to HRDC, and will continue to cause damage.
27

65.

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

28 and proximately caused by the policies and practices of Defendants, which were and are the
[]
Case No. 3:25-cv-00361
14
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1, AND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

Case 3:25-cv-00361

Document 1

Filed 01/10/25

Page 16 of 17

1 moving force of the violations.
2

66.

As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, HRDC seeks declaratory and

3 injunctive relief against all Defendants.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violations of the Bane Act—California Civil Code Sec. 52.1)

4
5
67.

6

HRDC re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 66

7 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
8

68.

By their actions as described above, Defendants, acting in conspiracy and/or

9 in concert, with threat, intimidation, and/or coercion, violated HRDC’s rights under
10 California Civil Code § 52.1 and interfered with the exercise or enjoyment of HRDC’s
11 clearly established rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and
12 Constitution and laws of California. Defendants’ actions have caused actual damages to
13 HRDC within the meaning of California Civil Code §§ 52 and 52.1.
14

69.

The conduct of Defendants described above was objectively unreasonable and

15 was undertaken recklessly, intentionally, willfully, with malice, and with deliberate
16 indifference to the rights of others.
17

70.

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

18 and proximately caused by the policies and practices of Defendants, which were and are the
19 moving force of the violations.
20

71.

As a proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, HRDC is also entitled to

21 injunctive relief and an award of exemplary damages, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees, as
22 provided by California Civil Code §§ 52 and 52.1.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF

23
24

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests relief as follows:

25

1.

A declaration that Defendants’ policies, procedures, customs, and practices

26 violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; Article 1,
27 Section 2 and Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution; and California Code
28 Section 52.1;
15

Case No. 3:25-cv-00361
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1, AND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

[]

Case 3:25-cv-00361

1

2.

Document 1

Filed 01/10/25

Page 17 of 17

A preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Defendants and their

2 employees, agents, and any and all persons acting in concert with them from further
3 violation of HRDC’s civil rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
4 States Constitution; Article 1, Section 2 and Article 1, Section 7 of the California
5 Constitution; and California Code Section 52.1; and providing other equitable relief;
6

3.

Nominal damages for each violation of HRDC’s rights by the Defendants;

7

4.

Compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial;

8

5.

Punitive damages against the individual Defendants in an amount to be

9 proved at trial;
10

6.

Costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and

11 under other applicable law, including but not limited to California Civil Code § 52.1 and
12 California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5; and
13

7.

Any other relief that this Court deems just and equitable.

14
15

Respectfully submitted,

16 DATED: January 10, 2025

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

17

By: /s/ Marc J. Shinn-Krantz
Marc J. Shinn-Krantz

18
19 DATED: January 10, 2025

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

20

By: /s/ Jonathan P. Picard
Jonathan P. Picard
* Pro Hac Vice application to be filed
Attorneys for Plaintiff
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

16

Case No. 3:25-cv-00361
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1, AND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

[]