Prison Legal News v. Stolle et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|September 8, 2015
OPINION AND ORDER: granting 88 Motion for Attorney Fees. After making a downward adjustment to both the total hours and the hourly rate requested by Plaintiff, the Court hereby AWARDS attorney's fees to Plaintiff in the amount of $85,18 9. Such total figure represents a fee of $60,214 to Plaintiff's outside counsel and a fee of $24,975 to Plaintiff's in-house counsel. As to litigation expenses, the Court AWARDS $2,683 to Plaintiff's outside counsel and $6,048.10 to Plaintiff's in house counsel. Copies distributed as directed. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 9/8/2015. (bgra)
|March 31, 2015
OPINION AND ORDER granting 35 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 49 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 77 Motion for Summary Judgment. PLN's original motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to the reserved issue regarding the c onstitutionality of Defendants ' former policy on sexually explicit materials. ECF No. 35. Such former policy is declared unconstitutional as it is overbroad pursuant to the Turner analysis discussed in detail herein. The Sheriff and other named Defendants are hereby permanently ENJOINED from reverting to such policy. Defendants' cross motion for summary judgment on this issue is DENIED. ECF No. 49. PLN's second motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and it is hereby declared tha t Defendants' former publication review policies were unconstitutional as they failed to provide adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard as to decisions made by the VBSO to censor a unique monthly publication sent to inmate subscribers. E CF No. 77. The Court likewise grants PLN' s request for injunctive relief, and the Sheriff and other named Defendants are hereby permanently ENJOINED from reverting to the prior policies that failed to provide publishers adequate notice and an o pportunity to be heard "when their publications [we]re disapproved for receipt by inmate subscribers." Montcalm Publ' g, 80 F.3d at 106. The parties are hereby afforded fourteen (14) additional days to confer on the issue of monetary damages, and the Court Strongly encourages the parties to meet in person if they are having difficulty reaching an agreement. If the parties have not reached agreement by the end of the fourteen (14) day period, they shall, separately or collectivel y, file a "Status Update" on the record including comments on whether a continuance of the settlement conference has been scheduled and, if not, whether PLN wish to proceed to a jury trial on the issue of nominal and/or punitive damages. Copies provided as directed.Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 3/31/2015. (bgra)
|December 8, 2014
OPINION AND ORDER re 35 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's First Amendment claims filed by Prison Legal News, 49 MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by V Ogden, Matth ew Wilson, M Brittingham, E Rodriguez, A Torno, Darlene Moore, Ken Stolle, G Havens, V Harris. The Court TAKES UNDER ADVISEMENT the parties' cross motions for summary judgment as to the constitutionality of Defendants' "sexual ly explicit materials" policy in order to permit additional briefing on such subject. As to the cross motions for summary judgment onDefendants' "ordering form policy," Defendants' motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff's motio n is DENIED. The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment to the extent Defendants invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity as to both the ordering form ban and sexually explicit materials ban. All other arguments in support of summ ary judgment contained in the cross motions are DENIED. Counsel for both parties are INSTRUCTED to meet and confer in person within 21 days of the issuance of this Opinion and Order to discuss whether the resumption of the settlement conference previ ously conducted in this case would prove fruitful. The parties shall file with the Court, jointly or separately, a "status update" no later than Wednesday, January 7, 2015, indicating their position on whether a briefing schedule should be set by the Court for supplemental summary judgment briefs or whether the parties would prefer to resume settlement discussions with a Magistrate Judge prior to being ordered to submit further briefing on the issue of summary judgment. Copies distributed as directed on 12/9/2014. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 12/8/2014 and filed on 12/8/2014. (bgra)
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Virginia Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?