Hoglan v. Robinson et al, No. 7:2016cv00595 - Document 77 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 9/6/2018. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
çk.K:#@#wN tj, . a.4$:au, ., A ym jkkki,và .. , Flkr .p IN THE UM TED STATESDISTRICT COURT CE? -5 2218 FO R TH E W ESTERN D ISTR ICT O F W R G IN IA R O AN O K E D IW SION 'JUL . r.lpnx x n ' c DOUGLASA.HOGLAN, Plaintiff, v. A.DAVID ROBINSON,etal., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) l CivilAction No.7:16-cv-00595 M EM O UM OPIM ON By: Hon.Jackson L.Kiser SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge DouglasA .Hoglan,aVirginiainmateproceedingproK ,comm enced tllijaction ptlrsuantto42U.S.C.j1983,namingnumerousofficialsoftheVirgirliaDepartmentof Corrections(EçVDOC'')andGreenRockCorrectionalCenter(ç$GRCC'')asdefendants.Presently pendingarePlaintiY smotionforapreliminaryinjtmction andDefendants'motionforsllmmary judgment.Afterreviewingtherecord,Igrantinpartanddenyinpartbothparties'motions.A preliminaryinjtmctionisstayedforsixtpfivedaystoallow formediation. 1. TheVDOC continuesto frustratePlaintiffsreceiptofpicturesofnaked orscantily-clad females.See.e.g.,Hoclanv.Robinson,No.7:15cv694(W .D.Va.M ar.30,2018);Hoglanv. Robinson,No.7:13cv258(W .D.Va.Sept.19,2014).Thiscaseconcem stheVDOC'S interception and confiscation ofvadousphotoswhile Plaintiffwasconsned atGRCC.1 Plaintiff generally assertsthat: (Dlefendants'practice and article hasboth subjectively and discriminately Hoglan v. Robinson et al excluded contentprotected tm derthe FirstAmendmentwith the exclusions not being reasonably related to any genuine penologicalgoal. They bar otherwise perm issible artistic and sexually suggestive im ages whose Doc. 77 subjectsarenotpersonally affiliatedto theprisoner-recipientthatPlaintiff, and those notbefore the Court,desires. Plahltiffhad soughtto accnze the desired content in the convenient,less expensive, and physically smaller 1U nlikepastlitigation, thereisno indicationthatasex offendertreatmentplanwasappliedto Plaintiff duringtheeventsofthislitigation. Dockets.Justia.com ' . footprint m ethod of em ail,but the defendants have procedurally blocked him . A photo sentto aVD OC facility viapostalm ailmustincludethevendor'snnme and addressalzdastatementofcomplianceptlrsuantto 18U.S.C.j2257,whichregulatesdepictions ofGiact-ualsexualconduct.''TheVDOC assertsitneedsthecompliance statem entto ensurethat thephotosarecom ing from legitimatebusinessesandthatthem odelsdepicted in nude or sexually explicitphotosareatleast18 yearsold and consented tothephotography. In M arch 2016,Plaintiff sm othersentPlaintiffthreepicturesfrom the2016 Sports lllustrated Swim suitissueviatheVD OC ,sG:sectlremessaging,,system .2 Thepicturesshowed scantily-cladfemale swim wearm odels. TheVDOC review edthephotosand didnotallow Plaintiffto receivethem . 'I'heVDOC mssertsthatPlaintiffcould havereceivedtheimagesby postalmailiftheywerecertifiedpursuantto 18U.S.C.j2257,buttheVDOC doesnotrequire thatcçrtification requirem entforimagessentviasecurem essaging. FV-U J-. ' M '---VyçàOnly(çTYEO'') wlliçhlik@,çoprr P/ --U YP < ltwiàlrphptpdijvîblz -jps sentPlaintiff - . h . . 7 Lgul-phgt lcy-i -:..çNAi J-si -h-JN e20.161,dtvtrlt-y-.flW -t . - .' -. . ; . .,h.'' Jatiu-a. #y2017.'fheVD OC pltotosyitm ailiq. - - . .- . .iigllqwçdm pctofthç'bliptpcçithçrdm tqthçiiyqp ortçd G pliçitngtumtb:èpylgçlii d m g vendor - . . - ' .> cr ' ï dent rlf 'r sq= atipù ' andthé=cer U. = zz -l fh= tlf=icatl D---u opp-v-ju'antto 1&U,.S,C,j- 22' atrcv lpn. $7, -- . Forttw ptrmitiedlhotosfroritF% bz vboc staftgaveplaintifftw ephotosonly. . .. - - - VDOC OperatingProcedureC&OP'')803.1limitstheweightofincomingphotostothelesserof eitherfive4''x 6''photosoroneotmce.TheVDOC explainsthatthisrestriction promotesorder 2ttsecuremessaging''istheVDOC'Sweb-basedemailprogram thatoperateson acontracted vendor's serverandallowsVDOC stafftoreview a11incomingmessagesand attachm ents. 2 alzd security by allowing m ailroom staffto ex ciently search,review,alzd processal1inmates' incom ing m ail. M othercomm ercialvendor,Curbfeelers,m ailed fifteen photosto Plaintiff.VDOC staff disapproved twelveofthosephotosbecausetheypurportedly violatedthenudity cdteriaand portrayed m anipulation ofgenitalia orbuttocks. Plaintiff'srepetitiveassertionscan bedistilled tothree claimsabouthow Defendants promulgated and applied relevantpoliciesin violation oftheFirstAm endment: 1. Defendantsllnlawfully prohibited llim 9om receiving em àilswith im agesf' rom Sports Illpstrated and FYEO. 2. Defendantstmlawfully lim ithisreceiptto fivepicturesperem ailorenvelope. OP 803.1'srelianceon 18U.S.C.j2257istmlawfullyoverbroad andwasllnlawfully appliedto preventPlaintic sreceiptofphotosfrom thevendorCurbfeelers. PlaintiY smotionforapreliminaryinjunctionconcernsclaimstwoandthreeonly. II. A. A partyisentitledtosllmmaryjudgmentifthepleadings,thedisclosedmaterialsonfile, and any affidavitsshow thatthereisno genuinedisputeasto any materialfact.Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).M aterialfactsarethosenecessarytoestablishtheelementsofaparty'scauseofaction. Andersonv.LibertyLobby.Inc.,477U.S.242,248(1986).A genuinedisputeofmaterialfact existsif,inviewing admissibleevidence and allreasonable inferencesdrawn therefrom in alight m ostfavorabletothenon-m oving party,areasonablefact-findercouldreturn averdictforthe non-movant.J-I. L Themovingpartyhastheblzrdenofshowing- Sçthatis,pointingouttothe districtcourt- thatthere isan absenceofevidenceto supportthenonm oving party'scase.'' Celotex Corp.v.Catrett 477 U.S.317,325(1986).Ifthemovantsatisfiestllisbm den,thenthe . 3 non-movatltmustsetforth speciflc factsthatdemonstratetheexistence ofagenuinedispute of factfortrial.Id.at322-24.A partyisentitledtosllmmaryjudpnentiftheadmissibleevidence asawhole couldnotlead arationaltrieroffactto find in favorofthe non-m ovant.W illinm sv. Griffm,952F.2d 820,823(4thCir.1991).'tM eretmsupportedspeculation...isnotenoughto defeatasllmmaryjudgmentmotion.''Ennisv.Nat'lAss'nofBus.& Educ.Radio.lnc.,53F.3d 55,62(4th Cir.1995). A plnintiffcnnnotusearesponsetoamotionforsummaryjudgnwntto amendorcorrectacomplaintchallengedbythemotionforsllmmaryjudgment.Cloanincerv. M cDevitt 555F.3d 324,336(4thCir.2009). B. Defendantsarguethatqualified im mldnity should shield them from dam agesintheir individualcapacities.3 Qualifiedimmlmity protectsgovem mentox cialsfrom Eçbad guessesin gray areas''atld ensuresthatthey m ay beheld personally liable'only forGçtransgressing bdght lines.''M aciadellov.Sumner,973F.2d295,298(4thCir.1992);seeInreAllen.106F.3d582, 593(4th Cir.1997)(&ç(Aqn officialmayclaim qualisedimmlmityaslongasllisactionsarenot clearlyestablishedtobebeyondtheboundariesofhisdiscretionaryauthority.'').Qualified immllnityinvolvesatwo step inquiry:(1)whetheraconstimtionalorstatutoryrightwouldhave beenviolatedontheallegedfacts,and(2)whethertherightwascleadyestablished.Saucierv. Katz,533U.S.194,201-02(2001).Cleadyestablished1aw tGincludesnotonly already specifically adjudicatedrights,butthosemnnifestlyincludedwithinmoregeneral applications ofthecoreconstitutionalpzincipleinvoked.''W allv.W ade,741F.3d492,502-03(4thCir. 2014)(quotingPritchettv.Alford,973F.2d307,314(4th Cir.1992:.Case1aw recognized 3Eleventh Am endm entim munity protecà D efendantsin theiroftk ialcapacities9om damages. See.e.g., Willv.Mich.Deo'tofStatePolice,491U.S.58,71(1989). 4 beforeM arch 2016thatabroadban on com mercialphotosviolated established law. See.e.g., Prison LegalN ew s v.Stolle,N o.2:13cv424,2015 U .S.D ist.LEM S 43228,at*25-34,2015 W L 1487190,at*8(E.D.Va.Mar.31,2015)(collectingcasesthatfotmdnoprecedentupholdingthe constitutionality ofcorrectionalpoliciesbnnning item sdueto sexually suggestive,non-nude photos);seealsoRenov.Am.CivilLibertiesUnion,521U.S.844,874 (1997)(decladngittobe lGperfectly clearthatsexualexpression which isindecentbutnotobscene isprotected by theFirst Amendmenf');Procunierv.M artinez,416U.S.396,408-09(1974)(recognizingcensorshipof prisonmailimpactstheinmate'sand society'sFirstAmendmentdghtstocommllnicate). 111. DefendantsarguethatPlaintifffailed to exhaustavailableadm inistativerem ediesabout thedenialofphotosfrom Curbfeelers.1agreeandgrantthem summaryjudgmentforthatclaim . Theexhaustionrequirementof42U.S.C.j 1997e(a)ismandatoryandS<appliestoal1 inmatesuitsaboutpdsonlifel.j''Porterv.Nussle,534U.S.516,524,532(2002).Sfproper exhaustion demandscompliancewith an agency'sdeadlinesand othercriticalproceduralrules.'' W oodfordv.Ngo,548U.S.81,90(2006).W henaprisonprovidesan administrativegrievance procedure,theinm atemustfileagrievanceraising aparticularclaim and pursueitthrough al1 availablelevelsofappealtoççproperlyexhaust.''JZ A defendanthasthe, burdentoprovean inmate'sfailureto exhaustavailableadm inistrativerem edies. Jonesv.Bock,549 U.S.199,216 (2007).Onceasserted,thebprdenofproofslziftstotheplaintifftoshow,byapreponderanceof theevidence,thatexhaustion occurred oradministrativerem ediesweretmavailabletlzrough no faultoftheplaintiff.See.e.R.,Tuckelv.Grover,660F.3d 1249,1254 (10thCir.2011).An adm inistrativerem edy processdoesnotbecome Gttmavailable''when an inmatedoesnotcom ply with procedtlralrules.W oodford,548U.S.at95(2006).A courtmaynotexcuseafailtlreto 5 exhaustavailablerem edies,even to takeinto accountçtspecialcircllm stances.'' Rossv.Blake, 578U.S. ,136 S.Ct.1850,1856(2016). VDOC DepartlhentOperatingProcedureCçOP'')866.1,theçioffenderGrievance Procedtlre,''providesadministrativerem edies. An inm atem ustfilearegulargrievancewithin thirty calendardaysfrom thedateofthe occurrence orincident.A1lissuesarep ievableexcept issuesaboutpolicies,procedures,and decisionsoftheVirginiaParoleBoard;disciplinary headngpenaltiesand/orproceduralerrors;state and federalcourtdecisions,law s,and regulations;and othermattersbeyondtheVDOC'Scontrol. Plaintiffarguesthathewasnotrequiredto exhaustthe specificdenialoftheCurbfeelers photosillJune2017becausehehad previously fled grievancesabouttheapplicableOPs.4 op 866.1doesnotrecognizesuch an interpretation and instead m andatesexhaustion ofrem edies abouteach incidentoroccurrence.Forexnmple,an inm atewho filed agrievancecom plaining generally aboutmealpolicieswould notgeta blnnketexemption forfiling a grievanceaboutany particularmeal.Seeii at1859CGW henan adminiskativeprocessissusceptibleofmultiple reasonableintep retations,Congresshasdetennined thatthe inm ate should erron the sideof exhaustion.').Accordingly,Plaintifffailstoshow remedieswerenotavailable,therecord establishesthathefailedtoexhaustremediesabouttherejectionofphotosfrom Ctubfeelersin Jtme2017,andDefendantsareentitledto sllmmaryjudm entfortllisclaim. 4D iscovery hadbeen stayed basedontheassertion ofqualified imm unity butthatdiscoveryhasnobearing on exhaustion ofadm inistrativerem edies. 6 IV . Inm atesclearly retain protectionsafforded by theFirstAm endm ent,butthoserightsmust bebalanced with prisons'instim tionalneedsofsecllrity,discipline,and generaladministration. O'Lonev.EstateofShabazz,482U.S.342,348-49(1987).Thus,Haprisonregulationthat abridgesinm ates'constim tionalrightsis Gvalid ifitisreasonably related to legitim ate penologicalinterests.'''Lovelacev.Lee,472 F.3d 174,199(4thCir.2006)(citingTumerv. Satlev,482U.S.78,84(1987:.W hetheraregulationisreasonablyrelateddependson: (1) (W lhether there is a Gtvalid, rational connection''between the pdson regulation or action and the interestasserted by the governm ent,or whether thisinterestisçtso remote asto renderthepolicy arbit' rary orirrational'';(2) whetherçsaltem atiye means ofexercising the right ...remain open to pdson inm ates,''an inquiry that asksbroadly whether inm ates were deprived ofa11 forms of (the) (rightj or whether they were able to participate... otherlwiseq...;(3)whatimpactthe desired accommodation would have on securitystaff,inmates,andtheallocation ofprison resources;and (4)whether there exist any ççobvious,easy altem atives''to the challenged regulation or action,wilich may.suggest that itis ççnotreasonable,but is (insteadl an exaggerated responseto prison concerns.'' J-I. Lat200(citingDlrner,482U.S.at89-92);seeOvertonv.Bazzetta,539U.S.126,132 (2003) (discussingbm dens). OP 803.1,effectiveJanuary 1,2015,governsinm atecorrespondence. Inm atesmay receivecorrespondenceby mailorsecurem çssaging,com m only lcnown asemail.W hethersent by m ailorsecuremessaging,thephoto may notdepictççnudity,''which m eanscartoon orhum an gezlitalia,pubic area,buttockswith lessthan a ftlllopaquecovering oftheanus,andthefem ale breastwith lessthan afully opaque covering ofthe areola.5 Photossentto inmatesviasecm em essaging aretreated asççpersonalpictures''tm derOP 803.1. Rpersonalpictures''depicting Gçnudity''oraççsem i-nude''person isproMbited. dssemi5Plaintiffacknowledgesthatheisnotchallenging thepolicy defmingorprohibitingSçnudity.'' nude''çlincludelsjbutisnotlimitedtopersonsindiapers,undenvear,lingerieorswimwear.'' TheVDOC assertsthatçstmscrupulousvendors''circllm vented theproceduresprollibiting nude picturesofinmates'fnm ily m em bersby offeringnudepicturesofinm ates'wivesand girlfriends forsalein VDOC facilities.TheVDOC furtherassertsthatnudepicturesofinm ates'fnm ily memberscreate asedoussecurity risk in prison becausethephotosmay bestolen by other inm ates,wilich can leadto fghts.TheVDOC doesnotdescdbe why aSçsem i-nude''photo is treated thesnm easonedepicting tçnudity''orhow adigitalimagesaved in oneinmate'ssecure . messaging accotmtcould beGlstolen''by anotherinm ate. A. PlaintiffarguesthatDefendantsviolatedtheFirstAm endmentby prolzibitinghisreceipt oft:sportsIllustrated images''sentbyllismotherand vadousim agessentby FYEO. IEnd that Plaintiffsclaim forthe Sportslllustrated im agesdefeatstheassertion ofqualified imm unity and thatdiscoveryisneeded fortheimagesf' rom FYEO. TheVDOC failsto establish thatthecurrentpolicy and practice ofprollibiting an inmate'sreceiptvia securem essaging ofaphoto depicting aswimwearm odelisreasonably related to alegitimatepenologicalgoal.Forem ost,the VDOC failsto establish how treating digitalphotosofclothed m odelsisrationally related to thetreatm entofphotosw ith çûnudity.'' Also,theVDOC doesnotaddresshow itsfearoftheftofGtpersonalim ages''isvalid fordigital imagessaved in an inm ate'ssecurem essaging account.Furthermore,theVDOC failsto address PlaintiY sallegationsthatreceiving picturesvia mailisnotan adequate altem atewhen those colorphotosareintercepted,photocopiedin black and white,and destroyed beforethe inm ate 8 receivesthesubstnndard reproduction.6 M oreover, theVDOC failsto addresshow allowing digitalphotosofswim wearm odelsimpactsstaffresources;the contractorand staffhave already screened thephoto forcompliancefornudity,gang m aterial,and otherVDOC policies. Although itisnotclearwhatrationale supportstheVDOC'Sban on m odelsin swim wear,it appearstheVDOC can controlcostsand encouragerehabilitation by simply m anaging the storagelim itsforan inm ate'sseclzremessaging accotmt.Accordingly,Defendants'm otion for sllmmaryjudgmentisdeniedinpartastothebmlonStsemi-nude''swimwearmodels. Asforthephotosfrom FYEO,discovery willbeneeded tounderstandtheimages' contentstoproperly weigh the Tllrnerfactors. See.e.a.,Inglev.Yelton,439 F.3d 191,196-97 (4th Cir.2006).Accordingly,Defendants'motionforsllmmaryjudgmentisdelziedinpartasto photosom FY EO. B. Defendantsareentitledto qualifiedimmunityand mlmmaryjudgmentfortheclaim about pennittingonly fivephotosperem ailorenvelope.7 TheVDOC explainsthatpersonalm ail, which includesincom ing photos,islim itedto oneouncein weightçtto facilitatesearclling these itemstoprotectfacilityorderandsecurity''andthatdçltlhereisnolimitonthenumberofone otmce lettersthatan offenderm ay receive.'' TheVDOC'Slim itisreasonably relatedto thelegitim atepenologicalgoalsofeftk iency and costsavingsforstrenmliningtheinspection forproilibited m aterials.TheVDOC's: 6Plaintiff'sarplm entaboutç<tinancialdeterrents''arenotpersuasivebecausehedoesnotestablishhow any increasein costismorethan4:minimisorthatsuch anincidentaleffectconstitutesaconstimtionalviolation. See. e.g.,EpiscopalSttldentFotmd.v.CityofAnnArbor,341F.Supp.24691,701(E.D.Mich.2004). 7Consequently, Plaintiff'srequestforaprel iminaryinjunctionaboutthisclaim isdenied.See.e.g..W inter v.Nat.Res.DetlColmcil.Inc.,555U.S.7,19-22(2008)(requiring,interalia,aclearshowingfortheelementof likelihoodofsuccessonthemeritsoftheclaim relatedtothepreliminaryinjunction);RealTrtlthAboutObama.Inc. v.FEC.575F.3d342,347(4thCir.2009)(recognizingthateachelementtmderW intermustbesatisfied). 9 Pqrevention ofincoming contraband has long been aclcnowledged a valid penologicalinterestdue to instim tionalsectlrity concem s. To thisend prison staff are required to carefully screen incom ing mail. This is a very tim e consllming task forinstimtionalm ailroom persozmel. The weightlim itation on incom ing general purpose m ail furthers the legitim ate governm ental interest of institutional security because it allows m ail room persormel to quickly scan a shorter docum entfor potentialsecudty risks,such as escape plans. Otherwise,m ailroom personnelmay have to siftthrough tens,oreven hundreds,ofpagesin orderto determ ine whethera security threatwasM dden in an otherwise izm ocuousletter. Hallv.Johnson,224F.Supp.2d 1058,1060(E.D.Va.2002)(intemalcitationomitted). W hethertheincom ingm ailisphysicalordigital,stac sabilityto qtlickly and effectively screen each envelope'senclosttreoreach em ail'sattachm entsallowsstaffto screen m oreinm ates' correspondencequickerandtocontroltheassociatedcostsandsectlrit risksthatwould otherwise occurw ith an exponentially highervolum e ofincom ing enclostlresand attachm ents. Furthermore,theweightcondition isnota deprivation;itisalim itation. Thus,theability to exercisetherightremainswithinmatesbutsubjecttothisreasonableandcontent-neutrallimit. M oreover,therecord doesnotsuggestthatthephotolim itisan exaggeratedresponse. Accordingly,Defendantsareeqtitledtoqualisedimmllnityandsummaryjudgmentaboutthe quantity ofphotosper-correspondence. C. PlaintiY ssnalclaim constitutesa facialand as-applied challengetoDefendants'policy implementing 18U.S.C.j2257.Asalreadydiscussed,theas-appliedchallengefailsasa consequenceofPlaintiffsfailureto exhaustavailableadm inistrativerem edies. Thus,the facial challenge rem ains. G:A facialchallengeconsiderstherestziction'sapplicationto a1lconceivable parties....'' Colo.RighttoLifeComm .eInc.v.Coffman,498F.3d 1137,1146(10th Cir.2007).Thereare 10 threewaysin which aplaintiffm ay facially challenge aregulation tmdertheFirstAm endment. A plaintiffcan dem onstratethat:no setofcircum stancesexistsunderwllich theregulation would bevalid;theregulation lacksany plaizlly legitim atesw eep;ortheregulation isççoverbroad'' becauseasubsfnntialnumberofitsapplicationsaretmconstitutional,whenjudgedinrelationtoa plainlylegitimatesweep.UnitedStatesv.Stevens,559U.S.460,472-73(2010). Section2257(a)regulatesdepictionsofRactualsexualconduct''relatedtointerstateor foreigncommerceandproducedafterNovember1,1990.See28C.F.R.j75.1(c)(delining producer);CormectionDistrib.Co.v.Holder,557F.3d 321,325(6thCir.2009)(discussingthe statute'sapplicationtoprimaryandsecondaryproducers).çtsexually explicitconduct''thatdoes nothwolveaminor8meansç1actualorsim ulated . . . (i)sexualintercourse,includinggenital- genital,oral-gerlital,anal-genital,ororal-anal,whetherbetween personsofthe sam e oropposite sex;(ii)bestiality;(iii)masturbation;(iv)sadisticormasochisticabuse;or(v)lascivious exhibition ofthegenitalsorpubicareaofanypersong.l'' 18U.S.C.j2256(2)(A). TheVDOC expandsj2257'sfocusfrom Stactualsexualconduct''totheVDOC'S lmdefnedterm ttothersexualcontent''AsofAugust4,2015,OP 803.1tequires<1(a)11 comm ercially distributçdphotographs...to haveihevendor'sidentilication information and a 18USC 9(12257complimwestatement,whenapplicable,affxedtoeachindividualphotograph.'' Itfurtherstates,çlAny distributororvendorofcomm ercialphotographsdepicting nudity orother sexualcontentmustincludeon ech photo astatementcertifyingthatthey arein compliance withtheprovisionsof18USC 5(12257whichrequiresvendorstoverifythatthemodelsdepicted in thephotographsare 18 yearsofageorolden'' BSection 2257 appliesthetennS4sexually explicitconduct''differently fordepictionshwolving aminor, but thereisnothingintherecordtoindicatethatthiscasehwolvesaminor. 11 0P 803.1doesnotdefnelçothersexualcontent.''Such an expansion could perhapsbe justifedunderTumer,butDefendantshavenotattemptedtodoso.TheVDOC failstoaddress why itbelievesitreasonablynecessarytoprotectmodelsbyapplyingj2257toundefinedççother sexualcontent''versusthestatute'sdefined Gtacttzalsexualconduct'' PlaintiffseekspreliminaryinjunctivereliefconcerningOP 803.1'scertilication requirement.Seese.c.,W interv.NattlralRes.Def.Cotmcil.Inc.,555U.S.7,20(2008).lfind thatitappearsPlaintiffislikely to succeed on them edtsofthisclaim forthereasonsalready stated. ttf' helossofFirstAmendmentgeedom s,foreven m inim alperiodsoftime, tmquestionably constimtesirreparableinjury.''Elrodv.Btmls,427U.S.347,373(1976).The balance ofequitiestipsin Plaintiffsfavorasthereappearsto be aminim alburden,ifany,to the VDOC ifitlimitsOP 803.1'sççwhen applicable''certification requirementto tçactualsexual conduct''versusGçothersexualcontent''Finally,ttupholding constitutionalrightssurely serves thepublicinterest''GiovnniCarandola.Ltd.v.Bason,303, F.3d507,521(4th Cir.2002). Accordingly,PlaintiffispantedapreliminaryinjunctiontotheextentthattheVDOC, through theDefendantsin theiroflkialcapacities,enforceOP 803.1'scertification requirem ent çGwhenapplicable''underj2257asagainstPlaintiffforimagesdepictingEçsexually explicit conduct''asdefmedby 18U.S.C.j2256andwithoutregardtotheOP'stmdefinedterm of ç:othersexualcontent.''g Thisreliefisnr owly drawn, extendsno furtherthan necessaryto convcttheharm,andistheleastintnzsivqm eansnecessary to correctthathnnn. See 18U.S.C. j3626(a)(2).However,thispreliminaryinjtmction shallbestayedforsixtpfivedaystoallow thepartiesto consultviamediation forresolution ofthem atter. 91reiteratethatthisaction doesnotconcern OP 803.1'sdefmition orprohibition ofçtnudity.'' 12 V. Fortheforegoingreasons,Igrantinpartand deny in partDefendants'm otion for sllmmaryjudgmentandgrantin pat'tanddenyinpat'tPlaintiffsmotionforapreliminary injtmction.Thepreliminaryinjtmction isstayedforsixtyfivedayswhiletllismatterisrefen' ed toamagistratejudgeformediationtooccurwithinthenextsixtydays. ENTER :This --. day ofSeptem ber,2018. Seni rU nited States DistdctJudge 13
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
