Human Rights Def. Ctr. v. Baxter Cnty.

667 F.Supp.3d 959

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER, Plaintiff v. BAXTER COUNTY, ARKANSAS, Defendant

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-3070

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division

Signed March 31, 2023

Masimba M. Mutamba, Pro Hac Vice, Palm Beach County Attorney's Office, West Palm Beach, FL, Paul J. James, James & Carter PLC, Little Rock, AR, Sabarish P. Neelakanta, Human Rights Defense Center, Boynton Beach, FL, Bruce E. H. Johnson, Caesar D. Kalinowski, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle, WA, Daniel Marshall, Attorney at Law, Lake Worth, FL, Hara Fischbein, Human Rights Defense Center, Lake Worth, FL, for Plaintiff.

Jason E. Owens, Jason Owens Law Firm, P.A., Conway, AR, Thomas J. Diaz, Rainwater, Holt & Sexton, P.A., Little Rock, AR, for Defendant.

BENCH TRIAL OPINION AND ORDER

TIMOTHY L. BROOKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Table of Contents

I. BACKGROUND . . . 966

A. Procedural Posture . . . 967

B. Mandate . . . 968

II. PAST POLICY AND PRACTICES . . . 970

A. Findings of Fact . . . 971

B. Conclusions of Law . . . 974

1. Factors . . . 974

2. Balancing . . . 983

C. Relief . . . 984

III. PRESENT POLICY AND PRACTICES . . . 984

A. Findings of Fact . . . 985

B. Conclusions of Law . . . 986

C. Relief . . . 988

IV. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW . . . 988

V. CONCLUSION . . . 989

Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center ("HRDC") alleges Defendant Baxter County, Arkansas, violated its First Amendment and Due Process rights. See Doc. 1. This Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. 104) on April 25, 2019, ruling against HRDC on Count One, the First Amendment claim, and in its favor on Count Two, the Due Process claim. The Eighth Circuit affirmed this Court's judgment on Due Process but vacated and remanded judgment on the First Amendment. See Doc. 133-1.

HRDC's First Amendment claim is now before the Court on remand. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART HRDC's request for relief on Count One.

I. BACKGROUND¹

HRDC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that engages in litigation, advocacy, and public education around prisoner rights. See Doc. 1, p. 3. As part of that mission, HRDC publishes and distributes Prison Legal News, a monthly legal magazine, as well as The Habeas Citebook, other books about the criminal justice system, self-help books for prisoners, and informational packets that contain subscription order forms and a book list. Id. at pp. 5-6.

Baxter County operates the Baxter County Detention Center ("BCDC" or "Jail"), which houses pretrial detainees, convicted misdemeanants, convicted felons awaiting transport to the Arkansas Department of Corrections, and up to eight Act 309 trustees. See 2019 Trial Tr. vol. 1, Doc. 127, pp. 99-100. HRDC alleges the County implemented and adheres to a mail policy that limits all non-privileged, non-legal incoming mail to postcards. According to HRDC, the County refused to deliver issues of Prison Legal News, The Habeas Citebook, informational packets, order forms, court opinions, and legal letters sent by HRDC to inmates held in the Jail. HRDC argues the County's refusal to deliver these materials is unconstitutional.

Prisoners retain a right to freedom of speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, see Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979), that extends to communication with those beyond the prison walls, Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407, 109 S.Ct. 1874, 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989). Likewise, free citizens, including publishers, may "exercis[e] their own constitutional rights [to] reach[ ] out to those on the 'inside.' " Id.

At the same time, Supreme Court jurisprudence recognizes prison administrators "must strike [a delicate balance] between the order and security of the internal prison environment and the legitimate demands of those on the 'outside' who seek to enter that environment, in person or through the written word." Id. Accordingly, "the Constitution sometimes permits greater restriction of such rights in . . . [the context of] prison than it would allow elsewhere." Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 528, 126 S.Ct. 2572, 165 L.Ed.2d 697 (2006) (upholding ban on newspapers, magazines, and photographs for inmates placed in most restrictive level of prison's long-term segregation unit). "[D]ue regard for the 'inordinately difficult undertaking' " of operating a modern prison, Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 407, 109 S.Ct. 1874, and "substantial deference to the professional judgment of prison administrators," Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132, 123 S.Ct. 2162, 156 L.Ed.2d 162 (2003), necessarily tempers judicial scrutiny of prison policy.

The applicable standard reflects this dynamic: Regulation that impedes inmates' constitutional rights is nevertheless valid so long as the prison's policy is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). To evaluate reasonableness, the Court considers: (1) whether a "valid rational connection" exists "between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it"; (2) "whether there are alternative means of exercising the right that remain open"; (3) "the impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources generally"; and (4) whether there are "ready alternatives" to the policy. Id. at 90-91, 107 S.Ct. 2254. The same standard governs outsiders' rights in this context. See Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 407, 109 S.Ct. 1874; Doc. 133-1, p. 7 n.3.

HRDC contends that, under the Turner factors, the County's policy was—and is—unreasonable.

A. Procedural Posture

In 2017, HRDC sued the County and individual officers in pursuit of both monetary and injunctive relief. Defendants promptly filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 18), and, shortly thereafter, HRDC sought a preliminary injunction (Doc. 26) to enjoin continued enforcement of the policy. In its December 5, 2017 ruling, the Court dismissed the individual capacity damage claims based on qualified immunity. See Doc. 49. It concluded the law governing HRDC's First and Fourteenth Amendment claims was insufficiently clear to put these officials on notice that their actions were unconstitutional. The Court also concluded HRDC did not meet its burden to show likelihood of success on the merits and denied HRDC's motion for a preliminary injunction. Id. That left the constitutional claims against the County remaining to be litigated.

A little less than a month later, the Eighth Circuit upheld a postcard-only policy against a First Amendment challenge in Simpson v. County of Cape Girardeau, 879 F.3d 273 (8th Cir. 2018). Defendants renewed their motion to dismiss, arguing that the Simpson decision sufficiently clarified the law and entitled them to dismissal. See Doc. 50. The Court construed Defendants' renewed motion as one for judgment on the pleadings, denied the request on the merits, and dismissed the remaining official capacity claims as duplicative of the claim against the County. See Doc. 53. The individual officers were dismissed from the action.

On November 2, 2018, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment (Docs. 67 & 70). HRDC argued the County's adoption and enforcement of the postcard-only policy violated its First Amendment rights—and Simpson was readily distinguishable. The County, relying principally on Simpson, contended that its policy was constitutionally permissible under the First Amendment.

On January 22, 2019, the Court denied the cross-motions for summary judgment as to the First Amendment claims (Doc. 89). Relying on language in Simpson that characterized the holding as "narrow" and cautioned that each policy should be evaluated on the unique facts of each case, the Court concluded that a genuine dispute of material fact prevented it from ruling on the policy's constitutionality at the summary judgment stage.

The Court held a three-day bench trial, beginning on January 30, 2019, to resolve the First Amendment claim. In a Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. 104) issued on April 25, 2019, the Court set out findings of fact and conclusions of law. It held that the postcard-only policy was reasonably related to legitimate penological goals and did not violate HRDC's First Amendment rights. The Court dismissed HRDC's First Amendment claim with prejudice. HRDC appealed that decision to the Eighth Circuit.

B. Mandate

On appeal, a three-judge panel considered whether this Court erred in holding the County's postcard-only policy did not violate HRDC's First Amendment rights. The Eighth Circuit vacated the dismissal of HRDC's First Amendment claim and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion. See Doc. 133-1, p. 9.

Substantively, the Eighth Circuit focused on the second Turner factor. This Court determined that it favored Baxter County because the postcard-only policy left intact viable alternatives by which HRDC may communicate its message to inmates, including correspondence by postcard and the possibility of donating materials to the Jail's law library. On review, however, the Eighth Circuit emphasized the Supreme Court's admonishment in Overton that "while alternative means of communication do not have to be 'ideal,' they do have to be 'available.' " (Doc. 133-1, p. 6 (citing 539 U.S. at 135, 123 S.Ct. 2162)).

According to the Eighth Circuit, proper evaluation of the second Turner factor—and, as an extension, the Turner analysis more broadly—required the district court to first determine "whether HRDC proved its assertion that the postcard-only policy results in 'a de facto total ban' on Jail inmates accessing HRDC's materials." Id. at p. 7. The Eighth Circuit concluded "[t]he district court made no finding of fact on this issue." Id. at p. 8

"On remand, a district court is bound to obey strictly an appellate mandate." Bethea v. Levi Strauss &...