Case 1:25-cv-01208

Document 1

Filed 12/04/25

Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO;
CINDY CHAVEZ, County Manager,
individually and in her official capacity;
STEVEN SMITH, Warden, individually and in
his official capacity; ROSANNE OTERO,
Deputy Warden, individually and in her official
capacity; REYNA MCCANN, Deputy Warden,
individually and in her official capacity; and
DOES 1-10, individually and in their official
capacities,

No.

Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
UNDER THE FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
INTRODUCTION
1.

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

to enjoin Defendants from censoring publications and correspondence that it mails to incarcerated
persons at the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (the “Detention Center”).
Defendants have adopted and implemented mail policies, practices, and customs that
unconstitutionally prohibit delivery of publications and correspondence mailed by Plaintiff to
persons incarcerated at the Detention Center, and that deny due process of law to senders, like
Plaintiff, whose mail is censored, by failing to provide adequate notice and an opportunity to
challenge each instance of censorship. Defendants’ actions violate Plaintiff’s rights under the First
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief, and damages in an amount to be proven at trial pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
[4786753.4]

1

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case No.

Case 1:25-cv-01208

Document 1

Filed 12/04/25

Page 2 of 17

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.

This action is brought pursuant to 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 herein all occurred within this
judicial district.
4.

Plaintiff’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 United States 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 Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, as well as nominal and compensatory damages, against all Defendants, and punitive
damages against the individual defendants in their personal capacities.
6.

Plaintiff’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
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
7.

This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim for breach of

contract pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the same alleged acts of Defendants, which form
the basis of Plaintiff’s constitutional claims, also form the basis of Plaintiff’s breach of contract
claim.
8.

[4786753.4]

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

2

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case No.

Case 1:25-cv-01208

Document 1

Filed 12/04/25

Page 3 of 17

Defendants as described herein acted with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and/or with the
intent to injure, vex, annoy and harass Plaintiff, and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship
in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights with the intention of causing Plaintiff injury and
depriving it of its constitutional rights. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff seeks compensatory
and punitive damages against the individual Defendants.
PARTIES
9.

Plaintiff 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 Boynton Beach, Florida. For over thirty-five years,
HRDC has focused its mission on public education, advocacy and outreach to incarcerated persons
and the public about the economic and social costs of prisons to society. HRDC accomplishes its
mission through advocacy, litigation, and the publication and/or distribution of books, magazines,
and other information concerning prisons and prisoner rights. Prison Legal News is a whollyowned project and publishing arm of HRDC. Through its publishing project, HRDC engages in
core protected speech and expressive conduct on matters of public concern including: the operation
of correctional facilities; prison and jail conditions; the health and safety of incarcerated persons;
and the constitutional and human rights of incarcerated persons. HRDC publishes and distributes
two monthly magazines covering corrections and criminal legal news and analysis. HRDC also
publishes and distributes books about the criminal justice system and legal issues affecting
incarcerated persons, which HRDC distributes by mail to incarcerated persons, lawyers, courts,
libraries, and the public throughout the United States.
10.

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

of the State of New Mexico organized and existing under the laws of New Mexico. The County

[4786753.4]

3

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case No.

Case 1:25-cv-01208

Document 1

Filed 12/04/25

Page 4 of 17

is, and at all relevant times herein was, responsible for the policies, procedures, customs, and
practices of the Detention Center and its employees and agents. The Detention Center is and was
responsible for adopting and implementing mail policies, procedures, practices, and customs
governing incoming mail for incarcerated persons at the Detention Center.
11.

Defendant CINDY CHAVEZ is the County Manager of the County, and she has

held that position since November 2024. Defendant CHAVEZ is employed by, and is an agent of,
the County. She is responsible for overseeing operations of the Detention Center and directly
supervising the Warden of the Detention Center. As County Manager, Defendant Chavez is a final
policymaker for the County with respect to the operation of the Detention Center, and she is
responsible for policies, procedures, practices, and customs governing incoming mail for
incarcerated persons. She is sued in her individual and official capacities.
12.

Defendant STEVEN SMITH is the Warden of the Detention Center, and he has

held this position since April 2024. SMITH is employed by, and is an agent of, the County. he is
responsible for overseeing the management and operations of the Detention Center. he is
responsible for the hiring, screening, training, supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of
the personnel at the Detention Center who interpret and apply mail policies, procedures, practices,
and customs. As Warden, SMITH is a policymaker for the County with respect to operation of
the Detention Center, and he is responsible for policies, procedures, practices, and customs
governing incoming mail for incarcerated persons. He is sued in his individual and official
capacities.
13.

Defendant ROSANNE OTERO is a Deputy Warden of the Detention Center, and

she has held this position since April 2024. Prior to April 2024, OTERO acted as Interim Chief
of Corrections for the Detention Center. OTERO is employed by, and is an agent of, the County.

[4786753.4]

4

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case No.

Case 1:25-cv-01208

Document 1

Filed 12/04/25

Page 5 of 17

She is responsible for the hiring, screening, training, supervision, discipline, counseling, and
control of the personnel at the Detention Center who interpret and apply mail policies, procedures,
practices, and customs. As Deputy Warden, OTERO is a policymaker for the County with respect
to operation of the Detention Center, and she is responsible for policies, procedures, practices, and
customs governing incoming mail for incarcerated persons. She is sued in her individual and
official capacities.
14.

Defendant REYNA MCCANN is a Deputy Warden of the Detention Center.

MCCANN is employed by, and is an agent of, the County. She is responsible for the hiring,
screening, training, supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of the personnel at the
Detention Center who interpret and apply mail policies, procedures, practices, and customs. As
Deputy Warden, MCCANN is a policymaker for the County with respect to operation of the
Detention Center, and she is responsible for policies, procedures, practices, and customs governing
incoming mail for incarcerated persons. She is sued in her individual and official capacities.
15.

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

unknown to HRDC. Each of Defendants DOES 1 through 10 are or were employed by and are or
were agents of the County during some or all of the relevant timeframe. Each of Defendants DOES
1 through 10 were personally involved in the adoption and/or implementation of the mail policies,
procedures, practices, and customs at the Detention Center, and/or were responsible for the hiring,
screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and/or control of the Detention
Center staff who interpret and implement these mail policies, procedures, practices, and customs.
They are sued in their individual and official capacities. HRDC will seek to amend this Complaint
when the true names and identities of Defendants DOES 1 through 10 have been ascertained.
16.

[4786753.4]

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

5

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case No.

Case 1:25-cv-01208

Document 1

Filed 12/04/25

Page 6 of 17

were taken under the authority and color of state law.
17.

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.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
18.

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

education, advocacy and outreach on behalf of, and for the purpose of assisting, incarcerated
persons who seek legal redress for infringements of their constitutionally guaranteed and other
basic human rights. HRDC’s mission, if realized, has a salutary effect on public safety.
19.

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

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

Sending publications through the mail to incarcerated persons is essential to

accomplishing the mission of HRDC. The primary aim of HRDC is to communicate with
incarcerated persons about developments in the law and protection of one’s health and personal
safety while in prison or jail. Reading materials enable incarcerated persons to engage in
productive activity rather than sitting idle, thus helping to avoid conflicts and incidents of violence
in correctional facilities and encouraging lawful methods of dispute resolution. In addition,
reading allows incarcerated persons to keep their minds sharp, helping them prepare to become
productive citizens when released back into society.

[4786753.4]

6

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case No.

Case 1:25-cv-01208

21.

Document 1

Filed 12/04/25

Page 7 of 17

HRDC publishes and distributes an award-winning monthly magazine titled Prison

Legal News: Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights (“Prison Legal News”), which contains news
and analysis about correctional facilities, the rights of incarcerated persons, court opinions, prison
and jail conditions, excessive force, and religious freedom. Prison Legal News is published on
newsprint bound by two small staples, and is 72 pages long.
22.

HRDC also publishes and distributes a second monthly magazine titled Criminal

Legal News: Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights (“Criminal Legal News”), which contains
news and analysis about individual rights, court rulings, and other criminal legal-related issues.
Criminal Legal News is also published on newsprint bound by two small staples, and is 56 pages
long.
23.

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

criminal justice, health, and legal issues that are of interest to incarcerated persons and others.
Pertinent to this case, HRDC does not publish, but is the sole national distributor of Protecting
Your Health and Safety (“PYHS”), which describes the rights, protections and legal remedies
available to persons concerning their health and safety while they are incarcerated.
24.

In addition to its publications, HRDC also communicates with incarcerated persons

through the United States Postal Service by mailing them: (a) informational brochure packets
(“Info Packs”), which contain a brochure and subscription order form, a book list, and a published
books brochure (each of which is a single page); (b) copies of judicial opinions of import to
incarcerated persons, which are marked “Court Ruling;” and (c) letters that provide pertinent
information about HRDC’s publications and related topics, including subscription renewal letters
and follow-up letters to ascertain whether HRDC’s mailings have been delivered as addressed.
HRDC encloses a self-addressed, stamped envelope with its informational brochure packets and

[4786753.4]

7

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case No.

Case 1:25-cv-01208

Document 1

Filed 12/04/25

Page 8 of 17

subscription renewal letters, but does not enclose extra envelopes or stamps with the informational
brochure packets, judicial opinions, or other letters that it mails to incarcerated persons.
25.

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

persons and law librarians in more than 3,000 correctional facilities in all fifty states, including at
death row housing units and “supermax” prisons, including the federal Administrative Maximum
Facility at Florence, Colorado, which is known as the most secure prison in the United States. The
publications and books that HRDC distributes are mailed to hundreds of persons incarcerated in
New Mexico including at the Rio Arriba County Jail, San Miguel County Detention Center,
McKinley County Jail, Valencia County Detention Center, San Juan Adult Detention Center, Dona
Ana County Detention Center, FCI La Tuna operated by the US Bureau of Prisons, and the
Torrance County Detention Facility and Cibola County Detention Center housing ICE detainees.
26.

In 2015, Plaintiff, through its wholly owned project Prison Legal News, filed a

complaint against the County, and other individuals who were responsible for operating the
Detention Center at that time, in Prison Legal News v. County of Bernalillo, et. al., Case No. 1:15cv-00107-SCY-KBM (D.N.M. 2015) (the “Prior Suit”). In the Prior Suit, Plaintiff alleged that (i)
the Detention Center was censoring Plaintiff’s books in violation for the First Amendment, and
(ii) the Detention Center was violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by
failing to give Plaintiff notice of the censorship of its books and an opportunity to appeal those
censorship decisions.
27.

To resolve the Prior Suit, the parties entered into a settlement agreement (the “2015

Settlement Agreement”). A true and correct copy of the 2015 Settlement Agreement is attached
hereto as Exhibit A. In pertinent part, the 2015 Settlement Agreement obligates the Detention
Center as follows:

[4786753.4]

8

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case No.

Case 1:25-cv-01208

Document 1

Filed 12/04/25

Page 9 of 17

(1) the Defendants will deliver soft cover books sent through the mail directly to
individual prisoners at [the Detention Center] as long as the books are sent from
publishers and other book distributors; (2) in the event that Defendants refuse to
deliver any such book, Defendants will provide written notice of the decisions to
censor any book to both the sender and the intended recipient of the book and
such notice shall include a reference to the objectionable portion of the book, a
description of the way such portion violates [the Detention Center’s] rules, a
citation to the [the Detention Center] rule allegedly violated, and information
about the procedure to appeal the decision, including the name and address of the
person to whom such appeals should be addressed and the date by which appeals
must be submitted; (3) Defendants will retain any such censored book(s) for
review by the arbiter of appeals until such time as the appeal has been concluded
or the time in which an appeal may be filed has expired, if no appeal has been
filed . . .
(Ex. A, ¶ 2).
28.

The Detention Center’s current policy on the delivery of mail (the “Mail Policy”)

to individuals in custody at the Detention Center is available on the Detention Center’s public
website

at

https://www.bernco.gov/metropolitan-detention-center/how-to-send-mail-to-an-

inmate/ (last visited December 4, 2025). The Mail Policy provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
MAIL PROCEDURES:
Publications are not accepted and will be returned to the sender. The intended
recipient will be notified. Publications are defined as books, magazines,
newspapers, periodicals, journals, and newsletters.
Lewd material may neither be sent nor received. Lewd material is defined as
material characterized by, or intended to excite crude sexual desire; obscene.
Lewd Material Includes:
a. Written depictions or descriptions of sexual conduct that are obviously
offensive and, taken as a whole, have as their dominant theme an appeal to the
prurient interest;
b. Visual representations (including photographs, drawings, paintings, and
computer generated images) of actual or simulated sexual activity to include
intercourse, sodomy (oral or anal), sexual acts by instrumentation, bestiality,
sadomasochism, masturbation, or ejaculation;
c. Visual representations (including photographs, drawings, paintings, and
[4786753.4]

9

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case No.

Case 1:25-cv-01208

Document 1

Filed 12/04/25

Page 10 of 17

computer generated images) of children, simulated children, or persons
described as or presented as children, in sexually suggestive poses or clothing,
or with accompanying context that in totality strongly suggests a sexual theme
(example: a photograph of a clothed teenage girl with the caption describing
her as “jailbait” and referring to sexual activity). Children are persons under
the age of eighteen (180 [sic] for the purposes of this policy;
d. Nude photographs/depictions, including of the inmate or an acquaintance,
friend or family member of the inmate; or
e. Sexually explicit materials, including nude pictures, drawings or depictions
of genitalia or female breasts.
Prohibited material will be returned to the sender and will be logged. The
intended recipient will be notified.
Violent material or material that threatens facility security and order or public
safety may neither be sent nor received.
Prohibited material includes:
1. Instructions for the manufacture of drugs, weapons, explosives, or other
unlawful substances;
2. Instructions for evading facility security or monitoring, or for otherwise
disrupting facility operations;
3. Material urging or encouraging the manufacture of drugs, weapons,
explosives, or other unlawful substances;
4. Material urging or encouraging evading facility security or monitoring, or
for otherwise disrupting facility operations;
5. Advocacy of the overthrow of the United States, New Mexico, or other state
government;
6. Advocacy of terrorism, criminal behavior, racial, religious, or national
hatred;
7. Threats or encouragement of bodily harm or revenge against inmates, staff,
law enforcement or legal personnel, or any other person, or any material that
creates an unsafe environment for the offenders or staff;
8. Material detailing instructions for military, police, correctional, or security
tactics for riots, hostage negotiations, use of force situations, emergency drills,
and similar.
[4786753.4]

10

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case No.

Case 1:25-cv-01208

29.

Document 1

Filed 12/04/25

Page 11 of 17

The Detention Center’s Mail Policy is unconstitutional on its face as it bans all

books and magazines in violation of HRDC’s rights, and the rights of all other publishers, under
the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
30.

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

opportunity to appeal censorship decisions. Thus, such policies and practices violate HRDC’s
Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process.
31.

Between July 2025 and November 2025, HRDC sent books, magazines, and Info

Packs to individuals confined at the Detention Center. During that time period, one hundred and
sixty (160) of those items were returned to the HRDC by the Detention Center. The items returned
were addressed to individuals confirmed to still be in custody of the Detention Center on the day
HRDC received the returned mail.
32.

The one hundred and sixty (160) returned items consisted of: fifty-seven (57) issues

of Prison Legal News; sixty (60) issues of Criminal Legal News; thirty-eight (38) Info Packs; and
five (5) copies of PYHS.
33.

The rejected items were returned to HRDC marked “RETURN TO SENDER,” and

many of the items were also marked “TRANSITIONED TO A DIGITAL MAIL SYSTEM.”
34.

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

censorship decisions. Other than the vague markings on the outside of items returned via the
United States Postal Service’s Return to Sender service, Defendants did not provide HRDC with
notice of the reason any mailing was rejected. Nowhere on the returned items of mail was notice
provided of a right to challenge the censorship decision, or any information on whether or how
HRDC could appeal Defendants’ decision to refuse to deliver the publication or correspondence
to the intended recipient.
[4786753.4]

11

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case No.

Case 1:25-cv-01208

35.

Document 1

Filed 12/04/25

Page 12 of 17

On information and belief, the Detention Center has also failed to deliver over one-

hundred additional items mailed by HRDC to persons incarcerated at the Detention Facility, which
were not returned to HRDC.
36.

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 nonprofit organizational mission; the loss of potential subscribers and customers; and, the inability to
recruit new subscribers and supporters; the loss of reputation; and the cost of printing, handling,
mailing, and staff time, among other damages.
37.

Defendants, and other agents of the Detention Center, 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 employees of the Detention Center, whose conduct has injured and continues to
injure HRDC.
38.

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

and are all committed under color of state law with deliberate indifference to HRDC’s rights.
39.

Defendants’ actions and inactions were and are undertaken with reckless disregard

for Plaintiff’s rights and/or motivated by ill motive and intent, and were and are all committed
under color of law with deliberate indifference to HRDC’s rights.
40.

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

and other individuals imprisoned at the Detention Center.
41.

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

[4786753.4]

12

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case No.

Case 1:25-cv-01208

Document 1

Filed 12/04/25

Page 13 of 17

direct result of the constitutional violations. As a result, HRDC has no adequate remedy at law.
42.

Defendants’ conduct prohibiting or not delivering HRDC’s mailed publications and

correspondence to persons incarcerated at the Detention Center violates the First Amendment by
censoring HRDC’s freedom of speech and expression, and has a chilling effect on future speech
and expression directed at the persons incarcerated at the Detention Center.
43.

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

Defendants from refusing to deliver publications from HRDC and other similarly-situated senders
not associated with Amazon or Barnes & Noble, without legal justification, and 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)
44.

HRDC re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 43 of the

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
45.

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

communicate with persons incarcerated at the Detention Center under the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
46.

The conduct of Defendants was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken

recklessly, intentionally, willfully, with malice, and with deliberate indifference to the rights of
others.
47.

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.
48.

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

enjoined, will continue to cause damage to HRDC.
[4786753.4]

13

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case No.

Case 1:25-cv-01208

49.

Document 1

Filed 12/04/25

Page 14 of 17

HRDC seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and nominal and compensatory

damages against all Defendants. HRDC also seeks punitive damages solely against the individual
Defendants in their individual capacities.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process)—42 U.S.C. § 1983)
50.

HRDC re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 49 of the

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
51.

HRDC has a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in communicating with

persons incarcerated at the Detention Center by sending publications and correspondence to them
via the United States Postal Service, a right clearly established under existing case law.
52.

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

receive notice and an opportunity to object and/or appeal Defendants’ decisions to prevent the
publications and correspondence mailed by HRDC from reaching the incarcerated persons at the
Detention Center to whom they were mailed.
53.

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

publications and correspondence, and an opportunity to be heard with respect to that censorship.
In doing so, Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive HRDC of liberty and property
without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
54.

The conduct of Defendants was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken

recklessly, intentionally, willfully, with malice, and with deliberate indifference to the rights of
others.
55.

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
[4786753.4]

14

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case No.

Case 1:25-cv-01208

Document 1

Filed 12/04/25

Page 15 of 17

force of the violations.
56.

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

enjoined, will continue to cause damage to HRDC.
57.

HRDC seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and nominal and compensatory

damages against all Defendants. HRDC also seeks punitive damages solely against the individual
Defendants in their individual capacities.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Contract for Violating the Terms of the 2015 Settlement Agreement)
58.

HRDC re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 57 of the

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
59.

The 2015 Settlement Agreement is a legally binding contract between Plaintiff and

Defendants.
60.

Plaintiff has performed all of its obligations under the terms of the 2015 Settlement

Agreement.
61.

Pursuant to the terms of the 2015 Settlement Agreement, Defendants are obligated

to deliver books mailed by Plaintiff to individuals incarcerated at the Detention Center. (Ex. A, ¶
2). Defendants have breached the 2015 Settlement Agreement by failing to deliver books mailed
by Plaintiff to individuals incarcerated at the Detention Center.
62.

Pursuant to the terms of the 2015 Settlement Agreement, Defendants are obligated

to provide Plaintiff with sufficient notice and an opportunity to appeal the censorship of books
mailed by Plaintiff to individuals incarcerated at the Detention Center. (Ex. A, ¶ 2). Defendants
have breached the 2015 Settlement Agreement by failing to provide Plaintiff with sufficient notice
and an opportunity to appeal the censorship of Plaintiff’s books.
63.
[4786753.4]

As a result of the breaches described in paragraphs 61 and 62, Plaintiff has

15

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case No.

Case 1:25-cv-01208

Document 1

Filed 12/04/25

Page 16 of 17

suffered damages.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests relief as follows:
1.

A declaration that Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate the First and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
2.

A preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Defendants and their

employees, agents, and any and all persons acting in concert with them from further violation of
HRDC’s civil rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
and providing other equitable relief;
3.

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

4.

Compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial;

5.

Punitive damages against the individual Defendants in an amount to be proved at

6.

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

trial;

applicable law; and
7.

Any other relief that this Court deems just and equitable.

December 4, 2025

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
By: /s/ Ernest Galvan
Ernest Galvan, Cal. Bar No. 196065
Benjamin Bien-Kahn, Cal. Bar No. 267933
Attorneys for HUMAN RIGHTS
DEFENSE CENTER
101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, California 94105-1738
Telephone: (415) 433-6830
Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
* Pro Hac Vice Application to be filed

[4786753.4]

16

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case No.

Case 1:25-cv-01208

December 4, 2025

Document 1

Filed 12/04/25

Page 17 of 17

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

By: /s/ Jonathan P. Picard
Jonathan P. Picard, Fla. Bar No. 105477
P.O. Box 1151
Lake Worth, FL 33460
Attorney for HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE
CENTER
Telephone: (561) 360-2523
Facsimile: (561) 828-8166
* Pro Hac Vice Application to be filed
December 4, 2025

IVES & FLORES P.A.

By: /s/ Laura Schauer Ives
Laura Schauer Ives, SB# 12463
Attorney for HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE
CENTER
925 Luna Circle NW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: (505) 364-3858
Facsimile: (505) 364-3050

[4786753.4]

17

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case No.