Facts

Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center, a non-profit organization, brought a civil rights suit against Defendants the County of Tehama, and Dave Hencratt, the Sheriff of the County of Tehama, for alleged violations of due process of law under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, Section 7 of the California Constitution, and the Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 52.1. Plaintiff HRDC published and distributed books, magazines, and other materials, that contained informative news and critical analysis data regarding prisons, jails and other detention facilities. Specifically, Plaintiff's publications contained political speech and social commentary, which is generally protected by the First Amendment under the United States Constitution. Plaintiff asserted causes of action that alleged unlawful and unconstitutional policies, customs, and/or practices regarding the delivery of incoming correspondence and news publications sent to incarcerated inmates housed at Defendant County of Tehama's jails.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended Defendants violated HRDC's and the prison inmates' rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, when Defendants engaged in censoring publications and correspondence Plaintiff mailed to incarcerated persons at the Tehama County Jail. Specifically, Plaintiff contended Defendants adopted and implemented mail policies and practices that unconstitutionally prohibited delivery of publications and correspondence mailed by Plaintiff to persons incarcerated at the jail. Plaintiff contended Defendants' actions also denied Plaintiff's due process of law to publishers and book sellers, by failing to provide adequate notice and an opportunity to challenge each occurrence of censorship.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied Plaintiff's contentions and any wrongdoing.

Result

The parties agreed to settle for $143,500 for damages, attorneys fees and costs. Defendant agreed to change its policies and practices to allow Plaintiff's publications and those of other publishers and agreed to the Court's continuing jurisdiction to enforce the consent decree.