Galveston County Doesn’t Want Prison Legal News In Its Jail
By Craig Malisow
The folks at Prison Legal News are suing the Galveston County Jail, Sheriff Freddie Poor, and former Sheriff Gean Leonard, claiming the county is violating the monthly newsletter’s First Amendment rights by refusing to deliver issues to incarcerated subscribers.
Filed Monday in federal court, the suit claims that the alleged jail practice of not allowing prisoners to receive any publications “deprives Prison Legal news of its Constitutional rights of free speech and expression, and its due process rights.” (PLN is part of the nonprofit Human Rights Defense Center, with about 7,000 subscribers, most of whom are incarcerated).
“As publishers, we have a right to communicate with our readers and subscribers, just as much as our subscribers have a right to read our publications,” PLN’s Alex Friedmann told Hair Balls. He said PLN wasn’t aware until notified by prisoners or family members that its newsletter was not reaching the subscribers.
While the jail’s handbook states that certain publications are allowed under certain circumstances, Friedmann said, “The practice of the jail differs a little from the policy. The practice was, ‘You can’t get books or magazines, period.’”
But aren’t jail officials just saving prisoners from nasty paper-cuts and the dangerous possibility of book-learnin’? After all, the 56-page newsletter, according to the website, “provides a cutting edge review and analysis of prisoner rights, court rulings and news about prison issues….PLN provides information that enables prisoners and other concerned individuals and organizations to seek the protection and enforcement of prisoners’ rights at the grass-roots level.”
Sounds to us like that might make them boys all uppity.
“We have a problem when government officials get to decide what people are able to read and receive,” Friedmann said. “….Our government should not be in the business of deciding what citizens read, whether they’re incarcerated or not.”
He added that, “Most jails recognize prisoners rights’ to receive reading materials, unlike Galveston.”
We put a call into the Sheriff’s office and are waiting on a response.
“There is this mentality that when people are locked up, they lose all their rights, and of course that isn’t true,” Friedmann said. “There’s also a mentality that prisoners need to be treated harshly and punished. The bad part of that is, in county jails or city jails, the vast majority of people there are pre-trial detainees. Those are people who have not yet been convicted of any crime, who are presumably innocent until proven guilty, and yet the philosophy is to treat them as poorly as possible and restrict their rights as much as possible.”
Publisher sues Galveston County Sheriff, claims censorship, First Amendment violations
Galveston, Texas – Prison Legal News (PLN), a monthly publication that reports on criminal justice-related issues, filed a lawsuit today in U.S. District Court against Galveston County, Sheriff Freddie Poor, former Sheriff Gean Leonard and a Sheriff’s lieutenant. The suit alleges unconstitutional censorship at the county jail in violation of the First Amendment.
According to the jail’s inmate handbook, prisoners can receive “books, magazines or news-papers” if they are sent by the publisher, but only if approval is obtained from jail officials. Such approval is only granted “under special circumstances.” However, when PLN’s editor called the jail he was told that prisoners could not receive any books or magazines.
Although PLN has six subscribers at the Galveston County Jail, they have been unable to receive PLN’s monthly publication or book orders due to the jail’s policy. Further, according to PLN’s complaint it “has never received any notice from Galveston County that the publication was being censored.”
For example, prisoner Clarence Crawford was told by jail staff that he could not receive a book from PLN, titled Protecting Your Health and Safety, because “it was not authorized through proper channels.” He was also told to “read the inmate handbook on what you can have or can’t in this facility.” PLN received no notice of this censorship.
“Prisoners in jail, many of whom are awaiting trial, have not been convicted and are presumed innocent until proven guilty, have a right under the First Amendment to receive reading material, and publishers such as PLN also have a First Amendment right to send publications to prisoners. There is no exception in the Bill of Rights that excludes prisoners from freedom of speech,” said PLN editor Paul Wright.
PLN is seeking injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and compensatory and punitive damages against the defendants, as well as attorney fees and costs of the litigation.
The case is Prison Legal News v. Sheriff Freddie Poor, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Case No. 3:10-cv-00251. PLN is represented by attorneys Lauren Izzo, Scott Medlock and James C. Harrington with the Texas Civil Rights Project.
Prison Legal News (PLN), founded in 1990 and based in Brattleboro, Vermont, is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting human rights in U.S. detention facilities. HRDC publishes a monthly magazine that includes reports, reviews and analysis of court rulings and news related to prisoners’ rights and criminal justice issues. PLN has almost 7,000 subscribers nationwide and operates a website (www.prisonlegalnews.org) that includes a comprehensive database of prison and jail-related articles, news reports, court rulings, verdicts, settlements and related documents. PLN is a project of the Human Rights Defense Center.
KeyPoint review lawsuit is settled
City agrees to pay $12,000 to group (TCRP) that sought Sanders shooting report’s release
By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATEMAN STAFF
Austin city officials plan to pay about $12,000 in legal fees to a civil rights group in exchange for the organization withdrawing a lawsuit that sought the results of an outside review into a fatal police shooting.
A judge has not signed off on the agreement between the city and the Texas Civil Rights Project, but officials said they expect to resolve the matter in coming days.
Project Director Jim Harrington said the group decided to drop the suit, filed in April, after city officials released the report by KeyPoint Government Solutions in May and agreed to pay the fees.
City leaders had said for nearly eight months that a full copy of the report, which reviewed the actions of senior police officer Leonardo Quintana in the fatal shooting of Nathaniel Sanders II in May 2009, was confidential.
They changed that stance after an American-Statesman story that showed the city had released a similar report in 2004.
“We got what we wanted, and the report is out,” Harrington said. “There is nothing more to litigate.”
He said state law allowed the civil rights project to seek the legal fees, which the court set based on the number of hours lawyers and clerks spent on the case.
City spokesman Reyne Telles said Wednesday that officials chose to “move on from this issue” and have “elected to have the case resolved in such a manner.”
“We will be paying the attorneys’ fees in order to close the case,” Telles said.
The action did not meet the financial threshold that would have required City Council approval.
Officials have said that Quintana fatally shot Sanders during a struggle for a gun in an apartment complex parking lot. Quintana was suspended for 15 days for failing to activate his patrol car camera but was not disciplined for his tactics or use of deadly force. He was fired from the force in May after a drunken driving arrest this year.
Last year, city officials hired KeyPoint to review the shooting but released only a heavily redacted copy of its report.
Officials cited state law, which said that only information relating to allegations for which Quintana was disciplined could be made public.
They later clarified a contract with the police union and released the report.
City Attorney David Smith, whose legal department had said that the report was confidential, retired from the city in May and took responsibility for the handling of the report’s release.
Council Member Chris Riley said Wednesday that he thinks the city’s payment of attorney fees to the civil rights project is appropriate.
“I wish that we had found a way to release (the report) sooner, and I think that the city bears some responsibility for the fact that it wasn’t released sooner,” he said.
Council Member Sheryl Cole said she considers the city’s agreement to cover the project’s legal fees “a down payment on moving forward in a positive direction with Harrington and his organization to address the complex social issues facing our community.”
From the TCRP Inbox
The real key point – more likely rhetorical question – I have from this whole mess, is why on earth would the city attempt to give supernumerary rights (reports kept confidential) to a public safety union contact, rights sufficient to trump the Texas Public Information Act?
More proof I guess that it is the public safety unions, more than any other body or persons, that determines who serves on City Council, including who de facto runs our dear city.
So long David Smith for defending the indefensible. Thank goodness for the TCRP.
Best,
(signed) R— V—
TCRP Press Release
TCRP Settles Open Records Lawsuit against City of Austin
City Released Sanders Shooting Report While Case Pending
AUSTIN, TX–The Texas Civil Rights Project agreed to dismiss its successful Texas Public Information Act (PIA) lawsuit against the City of Austin, following the City’s release of an independent report on a fatal police shooting. TCRP requested the City disclose the report under the PIA, but the City chose to keep the report secret. A hearing was held, and the judge was expected to rule when the City preemptively released the report before the judge could act.
On May 11, 2009, Austin Police Officer Leonardo Quintana shot and killed Nathaniel Sanders II, and seriously injured Sir Lawrence Smith. Following the shooting, the City hired KeyPoint Government Solutions, a respected New York -based company, to investigate the shooting. The City taxpayers paid KeyPoint $50,000.
“It’s obvious the report was released because the City knew it was going to lose the lawsuit.” said Scott Medlock, TCRP staff attorney. “For months, there was no action to make this report public. Right after the hearing in TCRP’s case, the City decides to release the report. This lawsuit is a victory for open government and police transparency.”
Redacted version released to TCRP by the City of Austin on March 1, 2010 (pdf 2.5mb)
* * * * *
Unredacted version released to the public by the City of Austin on May 13, 2010 (pdf 1.2mb)
* * * * *
Suit against Chico’s: Gay men allege city, security violated civil rights
By Diana Washington Valdez
EL PASO TIMES
EL PASO — Five men who allege their constitutional rights were violated at a Chico’s Tacos last year filed a lawsuit Monday against the city government, a security company and the restaurant.
The case involves two men who kissed at Chico’s Tacos and whom police allegedly threatened to charge with a violating a state statute on homosexual conduct that was declared unconstitutional in 2003.
They and three other men in their group said guards ordered them to leave the restaurant. The trouble occurred a year ago, on June 29, 2009, at the Chico’s Tacos at 11381 Montwood.
Plaintiff Carlos Diaz de Leon and lawyers with the Paso del Norte Civil Rights Project announced the lawsuit at a news conference in Central El Paso. Diaz De Leon, 32, said the other four plaintiffs are identified as “John Does” because they fear retaliation.
“I’m doing this because I want to see change, a lot of change,” Diaz De Leon said. “I would like for people to be aware of their rights, and basically, I want equality for everyone.”
Chico’s Tacos owner Bernie Mora could not be reached for comment Monday. But in a previous interview he said the five men were aggressive, confrontational and disrupted other customers.
He said a surveillance video showed them at one point “jump up and charge at the guard.” Mora, though, said that video no longer exists.
City spokeswoman Julie Lozano said city officials had not seen the lawsuit and generally do not comment on pending litigation.
Col. Robert Gamboa, of Bradford All-American International Security Inc., the company that provided Chico’s Tacos with guards last year, said Diaz De Leon’s claims were false.
“There was no discrimination,” Gamboa said. “Chico’s never asked the men to leave the restaurant. They remained there for 45 minutes and finished their meal. It was their decision to leave.”
According to the lawsuit, “Two plaintiffs shared a couple of brief kisses, but none of the plaintiffs engaged in lewd or illegal behavior.”
In response to the kisses, Briana Stone, a lawyer and director of the Paso del Norte Civil Rights Project, said that two Bradford security guards yelled at the men, swore at them and threatened to throw them out of the restaurant, despite a city ordinance that prohibits places of public accommodation from refusing service on the basis of sexual orientation.
Diaz De Leon said he and his friends had received threats, and his business suffered losses since he and the others decided to speak out against what happened.
Stone said the date the suit was filed in state district court coincided with the June 28, 1969, anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, in which New York City homosexuals mobilized after police raided a bar.
In the Chico’s Tacos case, Stone said, police failed to enforce the city ordinance barring discrimination based on sexual orientation. Instead, Stone said, police threatened to arrest the men for homosexual conduct under the obsolete state statute.
The lawsuit alleges that a detective told the five men, “You are lucky that you are not going to be ticketed for homosexual activity.”
The detective was referring to Texas Penal Code 21.06, which made it a Class C misdemeanor for someone to engage in sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex.
The statute was declared unconstitutional, though it is still on the books.
After the Chico’s Tacos case, Police Chief Greg Allen ordered training for his officers so they understood the law.
Interponen aquí cinco gays demanda por discriminación
Julio Antonio Molinet
El Diario de El Paso
Cinco miembros de la comunidad gay presentaron ayer una demanda contra el Gobierno local, agentes policiacos, de seguridad y un restaurante, por los hechos discriminatorios de los cuales fueron víctimas el 28 de Junio de 2009.
Dentro de los emplazados figuran la Ciudad de El Paso, Texas; los oficiales Rodríguez-Aceves, Marco Nava y Simón Martínez Castañón; la compañía Chico’s Tacos, Inc. y Bradford All-American International Security, Inc.
La queja fue interpuesta ante una Corte estatal, por medio del Proyecto por los Derechos Civiles Paso del Norte, refiriendo violaciones al Artículo uno, apartados tres y 19, de la Constitución del Estado de Texas.
La misma intercede a favor de los ofendidos, Carlos Enrique Díaz de León, de 32 años, y sus cuatro compañeros, cuyos nombres permanecen bajo anonimato por cuestiones de seguridad, “por temor a ser ultrajados en sus centros de trabajo y/o por parte de la sociedad paseña”.
“Con este pleito, nosotros esperamos detener en El Paso la discriminación hacia la comunidad de lesbianas, gays, bisexuales y transgéneros (LGBT) que asiste a lugares públicos”, dijo la directora de la referida institución, Briana Stone.
Y agregó: “Queremos exigir a la Ciudad que eduque debidamente a los oficiales acerca de las leyes locales y constitucionales que protegen a las personas LGBT”.
Según se registró, la tarde en que sucedieron los hechos, los cinco paseños entraron al restaurante Chicos Taco’s localizado en la avenida Montwood para degustar una comida. Dos de ellos –del sexo masculino– se dieron un beso en los labios.
En respuesta, dos guardas de seguridad les gritaron, acosaron y amenazaron con echarlos del establecimiento a pesar de que una ordenanza local prohíbe a los empleados de la ciudad y negocios públicos discriminar a las personas por su orientación sexual.
Cuando los hombres abandonaron el lugar llamaron al Departamento de Policías para quejarse de la situación, sin embargo, el agente que acudió a atenderlos en vez de hacer valer la ley, amenazó con detenerlos por “conducta homosexual” bajo un estatuto declarado inconstitucional en 2003.
“Todos debemos ser iguales cuando salimos a establecimientos públicos. El cuerpo de seguridad de Chico’s Tacos y la Policía agraviaron nuestros derechos como miembros de esta comunidad”, señaló, Carlos Enrique Díaz de León, uno de los demandantes.
E insistió: “Fuimos pacíficos. Fuimos respetuosos. Pero nos acosaron y amenazaron por ser gays. Confiamos que este proceso sea un aviso para la Ciudad y negocios locales. Ellos no nos pueden tratar de esta manera”.
Según declaró, Díaz de León, a este rotativo, “siente mucho miedo por lo que pueda suceder” en los centros de trabajo de los demandantes, incluso, por las reacciones de los familiares. “Nadie se imagina la vergüenza que pasamos y todavía estamos pasando por lo que nos dice la gente, los rumores, represalias… por eso estamos asustados”, confesó. Y sostuvo “hemos recibido amenazas en la casa, el trabajo, en las calles, ahora no sabemos lo que va a suceder, solo pedimos igualdad y respeto”.
El incidente del verano pasado, y la presentación legal de la demanda coinciden con los “disturbios de Stonewall” del 28 de junio de 1969; un hecho que marcó la historia de los Estados Unidos y que fue crucial en la defensa de los derechos de las lesbianas, gays, bisexuales y transgéneros (LGBT). Seis meses después, se habían creado dos organizaciones de activistas Gays en Nueva York y se fundaron tres periódicos para promover sus derechos.
TCRP Safe Schools Program Builds Tolerance for LGBT Diversity
The Safe Schools Program visited Lanier High School in Austin to provide four individual presentations about harassment and discrimination towards the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community. With the support of staff and more than a hundred students in attendance, Safe Schools delivered a message of tolerance and personal accountability in order to develop a safe and welcoming academic environment for all students.
Through informational activities about gender identity and expression, LGBT-specific vocabulary building exercises, acting out real-world scenarios, and classroom discussions, students learned about the ramifications of bullying as well as the various ways bullying can be manifested.
Volunteer Brittany Jacobs — aided by Kate Pottebaum and Elliot Cole — mediated discussions that spurred debate on how sexual orientation plays a role in how we perceive athletes, politicians, and ourselves. The seminars challenged students to reevaluate their actions and use of discriminatory speech, and gave students a better understanding of the problems of bullying and its effect on their LGBT peers.
Guest speakers Omar Lopez, Jeffrey Goodwin, and Dylan Gregory connected with classes by speaking about their own personal experiences with bullying. Each presented stories that conveyed the longstanding effects of harassment and discrimination, from being discharged under “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” to being ostracized by classmates. The speakers took questions from the class after their presentations, which encouraged a discussion of LGBT issues that provided valuable insight to students.
TCRP extends a special thanks to Lanier teacher Isa Boonto-Zarifis, who invited Safe Schools to speak to her classes. She incorporated the presentation into her curriculum by creating a follow-up assignment that challenges students’ perception of gender stereotypes in art.
– By Elliot Cole, TCRP Safe Schools Volunteer
Lawsuit seeks interpreters for indigent in civil cases
By CHRIS MORAN
A civil rights group is suing Harris County in federal court to force the county to provide interpreters to more indigent people in civil cases.
When needed, interpreters are automatically appointed in criminal cases. But Tuesday’s lawsuit, filed by the Texas Civil Rights Project, charges that failure to do so in civil cases violates the constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law.
“We’re a little bit puzzled, because we know we do provide interpreters in many (civil) cases,” said Robert Soard, chief of staff to the county attorney. For example, Soard said, the county appoints interpreters when the termination of parental rights is at stake.
Soard said his understanding of county policy is that judges have discretion to appoint free interpreters to the indigent in other cases and to assign payment of interpreters’ fees to the losing party.
Child custody case
The Civil Rights Project is suing on behalf of a domestic violence victim who can’t afford interpreters should her ex-fiancee continue to contest her in court over restraining orders, child support or custody of their daughter. The lawsuit seeks to force the county to appoint interpreters in these categories of litigation, said the plaintiff’s attorney, Abby Frank.
“Why is Harris County providing an interpreter for a shoplifter, yet a woman who is in danger for her life has to go without one?” asked Wayne Krause, another attorney with the civil rights group, at a news conference outside the county administration building.
Living in a shelter
The woman is suing under the name Jane Doe because she still fears for her safety. She speaks little English.
The 37-year-old left a job as an attorney in the Mexican state of Michoacan to join her then-fiancee in Houston four years ago. She gave birth months later. Shortly after that, the ex-fiancee began abusing her physically and verbally, and she moved into a domestic violence shelter, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit indicates the unemployed woman has spent $1,250 on interpreters for her court appearances so far.
“It takes away money she could be using to support her 3-year-old daughter,” Frank said.
