Free Proposed Pretrial Order - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-02320-PSF-MJW

Document 87

Filed 02/14/2006

Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 03-cv-2320-PSF-MJW MARK JORDAN, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT A. HOOD, Warden, ADX Florence, MARY H. SOSA, Acting ISM, ADX Florence, in their official capacities, and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendants. FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER I. DATE AND APPEARANCES The Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for February 21, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. Plaintiff is represented by Edward T. Ramey, Isaacson Rosenbaum P.C., 633 17th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 80202. Defendants are represented by William G. Pharo, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, 1225 17th Street, Suite 700, Denver, Colorado 80202. II. JURISDICTION Plaintiff contends that this Court has jurisdiction over the claims in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defendants contend that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702.

1174087_1.doc

Case 1:03-cv-02320-PSF-MJW

Document 87

Filed 02/14/2006

Page 2 of 8

III. CLAIMS AND DEFENSES Plaintiff Mark Jordan, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum (ADX) facility in Florence, Colorado, challenges the constitutionality of 28 C.F.R. § 540.71(a)(2), which provides as follows: At medium security, high security, and administrative institutions, an inmate may receive softcover publications (for example, paperback books, newspaper, clippings, magazines, and other similar items) only from the publisher, from a book club, or from a bookstore. Jordan alleges that the regulation violates the First Amendment because it is facially vague and overbroad, unnecessarily sweeping, lacks a valid, rational connection to a legitimate penological interest, and is an exaggerated response to the interest asserted. He also alleges that rejections by the Defendants of specific publications mailed to him from sources other than those specifically allowed by the regulation lacked individualized determinations and failed to provide him a realistic opportunity to appeal a decision to reject, thereby constituting a taking of his personal property without procedural due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Jordan requests the Court to declare the regulation to be unconstitutional both facially and as applied to him and to enter a permanent injunction against its further enforcement. Defendants contend that the subject regulation bears a rational connection to legitimate penological interests and is constitutional both on its face and as applied to Plaintiff. IV. STIPULATIONS None.

1174087_1.doc

2

Case 1:03-cv-02320-PSF-MJW

Document 87

Filed 02/14/2006

Page 3 of 8

V. PENDING MOTIONS Jordan filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Opening Brief on October 20, 2005. Defendants filed a Response on December 12, 2005. Jordan filed a Reply on December 30, 2005. VI. WITNESSES I. Plaintiff's Witnesses: A. Non-Expert Witnesses: 1. Will Call: a. Mark Jordan: Mr. Jordan will testify regarding the factual basis for

his claims, including his efforts to obtain various publications and his pursuit of administrative remedies with the federal correctional system. Mr. Jordan is expected to testify in person or by video-conference. 2. May Call: a. John Lee: Mr. Lee may be called to testify as an adverse witness

regarding the Defendant Bureau's justifications for the challenged regulation. Mr. Lee may be called to testify in person if made available by the Defendants; otherwise, he may testify by deposition. b. Jon Loftness: Mr. Loftness may be called to testify as an adverse Mr.

witness regarding the Defendant Bureau's justifications for the challenged regulation.

Loftness may be called to testify in person if made available by the Defendants; otherwise, he may testify by deposition.

1174087_1.doc

3

Case 1:03-cv-02320-PSF-MJW

Document 87

Filed 02/14/2006

Page 4 of 8

c.

Mary Sosa:

Ms. Sosa may be called to testify as an adverse

witness regarding the Defendant Bureau's justifications for the challenged regulation. Ms. Sosa may be called to testify in person if made available by the Defendants; otherwise, she may testify by deposition. B. Expert Witnesses: 1. May Call: a. Walter Kautzky: Mr. Kautzky may be called to testify as an expert

regarding the Defendant Bureau's justifications for the challenged regulation. Mr. Kautzky would be expected to testify in person. II. Defendants' Witnesses: A. Non-Expert Witnesses: 1. Will Call: a. Mary Sosa: Ms. Sosa will testify to the reasons the subject

regulation was needed and how it complies with the factors set forth in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987). B. Expert Witnesses: 1. Will Call: a. John Lee: Mr. Lee will testify to the reasons the subject regulation

was needed and how it complies with the factors set forth in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987).

1174087_1.doc

4

Case 1:03-cv-02320-PSF-MJW

Document 87

Filed 02/14/2006

Page 5 of 8

b.

Jon Loftness: Mr. Loftness will testify to the reasons the subject

regulation was needed and how it complies with the factors set forth in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987). VII. EXHIBITS A. Plaintiff's Exhibits: 1. Jordan's administrative file containing Requests for Administrative

Remedy, Regional Administrative Remedy Appeals, Central Office Administrative Appeals, and Responses. 2. 3. Promulgation of 28 C.F.R. § 540.71(a)(2), 67 FR 77161 (Dec. 17, 2002). U. S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons Program Statement

No. 5266.10 ("Incoming Publications"). 4. Answers to OMB Inquiries, 7/31/02, Sarah Qureshi, Rules Administrator,

Federal Bureau of Prisons. 5. Answers to OMB Inquiries, 8/09/02, Sarah Qureshi, Rules Administrator,

Federal Bureau of Prisons. B. Defendants' Exhibits: The administrative record. C. Copies of listed exhibits must be provided to opposing counsel and any pro se

party no later than five days after the final pretrial conference. The objections contemplated by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3) shall be filed with the Clerk and served by hand delivery or facsimile no later than 11 days after the exhibits are provided.

1174087_1.doc

5

Case 1:03-cv-02320-PSF-MJW

Document 87

Filed 02/14/2006

Page 6 of 8

VIII. DISCOVERY Discovery has been completed. IX. SPECIAL ISSUES Whether this case should be resolved through a trial or exclusively upon a review of the administrative record. X. SETTLEMENT 1. Counsel for the parties and any pro se party met in person on January 27, 2005 to

discuss in good faith the settlement of the case. Additionally, a settlement conference was conducted pursuant to the Court's Order with U. S. Magistrate Judge Watanabe on January 24, 2006. 2. party. 3. 4. The parties were promptly informed of all offers of settlement. Counsel for the parties and any pro se party do not intend to hold future The participants in both settlement conferences included counsel and any pro se

settlement conferences. 5. It appears from the discussion by all counsel and any pro se party that there is no

possibility of settlement. 6. 7. There is no further settlement conference scheduled. Counsel for the parties and any pro se party considered ADR in accordance with

D.C.COLO.LCivR. 16.6.

1174087_1.doc

6

Case 1:03-cv-02320-PSF-MJW

Document 87

Filed 02/14/2006

Page 7 of 8

XI. OFFER OF JUDGMENT Counsel and any pro se party acknowledge familiarity with the provision of Rule 68 (Offer of Judgment) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel have discussed it with the clients against whom claims are made in this case. XII. EFFECT OF FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER Hereafter, this Final Pretrial Order will control the subsequent course of this action and the trial and may not be amended except by consent of the parties and approval by the Court or by order of the Court to prevent manifest injustice. The pleadings will be deemed merged herein. This Final Pretrial Order supersedes the Scheduling Order. In the event of ambiguity in any provision of this Final Pretrial Order, reference may be made to the record of the pretrial conference to the extent reported by stenographic notes and to the pleadings. XIII. TRIAL AND ESTIMATED TRIAL TIME; FURTHER TRIAL PREPARATION PROCEEDINGS 1. Plaintiff requests a trial to the Court. Defendants submit that jurisdiction is

limited by the Administrative Procedure Act to a review of the administrative record. 2. 3. A trial is estimated to take two days. A trial would be held in Courtroom A602, Alfred A. Arraj United States

Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado 80294. DATED this ________ day of ___________________, 2006. BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge

1174087_1.doc

7

Case 1:03-cv-02320-PSF-MJW

Document 87

Filed 02/14/2006

Page 8 of 8

APPROVED this 14th day of February, 2006:

s/ Edward T. Ramey Edward T. Ramey ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF Isaacson Rosenbaum P.C. 633 17th Street, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303/256-3978 Fax: 303/256-3152 E-mail: [email protected]

s/ William G. Pharo William G. Pharo, Asst. U.S. Attorney William J. Leone, Acting U.S. Attorney ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS United States Attorney's Office 1225 17th Street, Suite 700 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303/454-0100 Fax: 303/454-0404 E-mail: [email protected]

1174087_1.doc

8