Human Rights Defense Center v. Santa Fe County et al

Filing 36

ORDER by Circuit Judge Paul Kelly, Jr. denying 2 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction; granting in part and denying in part 12 Defendant Santa Fe County's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. (rt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
a not-for-profit corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
(1) BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY
OF SANTA FE COUNTY, NM;
(2) DEREK WILLIAMS, Warden,
individually and in his official capacity;
No. 1:18-cv-00305-PJK-SCY
(3) MICHAEL OLIVER, Deputy Warden,
individually and in his official capacity;
(4) CARLOS MARKMAN-LOPEZ,
Major, individually and in his official
capacity, and;
(5) JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10, Staff,
individually and in their official
capacities,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART

THIS MATTER came on for consideration of Defendant Board of County
Commissioners of the County of Santa Fe’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

filed May 2, 2018 (ECF Nos. 12 (motion) & 32 (reply)). At this point, the Board of
County Commissioners seeks dismissal of the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief
against it. ECF No. 32, at 2, 5. Whether these claims are moot is a legal question that
may be considered pursuant to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion. See Rio Grande
Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096, 1126 (10th Cir. 2010). Upon
consideration thereof, the court finds that the motion is well taken and should be granted.
Background
Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC) brought this action seeking
declaratory relief, damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, and costs and attorney’s fees. ECF No. 17, at 10 (Amended
Complaint). Defendant Board of County Commissioners (County) operates the Santa Fe
County Adult Correctional Facility (institution). Id. at 3. HRDC is a “not-for-profit
charitable organization” that seeks to “educate prisoners and the public” about the
“economic and social costs of prisons to society.” Id. It pursues this objective through
advocacy as well as “the publication and/or distribution of books, magazines, and other
information concerning prisons and prisoner rights.” Id. HRDC sent its self-published
magazine, Prison Legal News, as well as several softcover books to inmates at the
institution. Id. at 6. The magazines were apparently received, but the softcover books
were allegedly censored and not delivered to the intended inmates. Id. “Eighty-five
books were returned to HRDC in their original packaging with writing on the outside
stating either ‘Against Policy Unauthorized Material’ or ‘Return to Sender Refused.’” Id.
2

“Further, Defendants failed to provide HRDC any notice or opportunity to appeal these
censorship decisions.” Id. at 7. HRDC claims that these policies violated HRDC’s First
Amendment rights as well as its due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
After HRDC filed the present suit, the institution immediately reformed its mail
and book policies. HRDC recognizes that these policies now “conform with minimum
procedural safeguards of due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, as well prevent the arbitrary censorship of publications sent by HRDC in
violation of its free speech rights under the First Amendment.” ECF No. 21, at 2. The
County then filed the instant motion to dismiss.
HRDC maintains that (1) the prior conduct of the defendants will affect current
and future behavior, thus the claims for declaratory relief are not moot, and (2) the
voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct in response to litigation (after the County was
aware of the problem) does not moot the claim for injunctive relief. Id. at 3–7.
According to HRDC, an injunction is necessary to prevent any repetition of unlawful
conduct and ensure that the County does not shirk its constitutional obligations. Id. at 7.
The court is not persuaded and concludes that the injunctive and declaratory portion of
the lawsuit against the County is moot. 1
Mootness
Because the County has voluntarily stopped the alleged violation, “a voluntarycessation evaluation” is required to determine if HRDC’s declaratory and injunctive
1

This order does not address the claims against the individual defendants. See ECF No.
32, at 1 n.1. In view of the court’s mootness determination, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction filed April 2, 2018 (ECF No. 2) should also be denied.
3

claims against the County are moot. Rio Grande, 601 F.3d at 1122; see also Bldg. &
Constr. Dep’t v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 7 F.3d 1487, 1492 (10th Cir. 1993). A defendant
claiming mootness in these circumstances must have changed course for a reason other
than to avoid the court’s jurisdiction. Rio Grande, 601 F.3d at 1115. Voluntary cessation
will moot such claims “if two conditions are satisfied: ‘(1) it can be said with assurance
that there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur, and (2)
interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the
alleged violation.’” Id. (quoting County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631
(1979)). This is a “heavy burden” that the defendant must carry. Id. at 1116.
Applying the two-part test from Rio Grande, the court concludes that HRDC’s
claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against the County are now moot. First, there
is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will reoccur. Both the warden and
deputy warden of the institution have provided affidavits declaring that they have no
intention of amending the new mail policy. ECF No. 12-1, at 2; ECF No. 12-2, at 2.
Furthermore, staff members have been trained regarding the new policy, suggesting a real
change in policy. ECF No. 12, at 8.
HRDC contends that the County was aware for more than a year that books were
not allowed, citing a complaint by a mother of an inmate, but the County only changed its
policy in response to this litigation. ECF No. 21, at 5. HRDC speculates that the County
could abandon the new policy and revert to the old one, or adopt another unconstitutional
policy. But HRDC provides no concrete evidence this will occur and “the ‘mere
possibility’ that [the institution] might rescind amendments to its actions or regulations
4

does not enliven a moot controversy.” Rio Grande, 601 F.3d at 1117 (quoting Ala. Hosp.
Ass’n v. Beasley, 702 F.2d 955, 961 (11th Cir.1983)). HRDC’s concerns are completely
speculative; at this point, there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will
reoccur.
Second, the effects of the alleged violation have been remedied with
administrative action. The County has provided its new policies (effective as of April 30,
2018) concerning receiving books and mail at the institution and has conducted training
with all employees that deal with mail. ECF No. 12, at 8; ECF No. 12-1, at 4. HRDC
concedes that the new policy meets the “procedural safeguards of due process required by
the Fourteenth Amendment” as well as HRDC’s “free speech rights under the First
Amendment.” ECF No. 21, at 2. Were the court to declare the institution’s superseded
policies unconstitutional, it would not affect the behavior of any of the parties in this
case. See Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012, 1024–25 (10th Cir. 2011).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that
Defendant Board of County Commissioners of the County of Santa Fe’s Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed May 2, 2018 (ECF Nos. 12 (motion) & 32 (reply))
is granted to the extent that the Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief
against the County are dismissed. In all other respects, the motion is either moot or
denied. The County shall answer as to any remaining claims within 14 days. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(4)(A).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiff’s
Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed April 2, 2018 (ECF No. 2) is denied.
5

DATED this 21st day of June 2018, at Santa Fe, New Mexico.
___________________________
United States Circuit Judge
Sitting by Designation

6