In response to that lawsuit, BOP altered its regulations to allow prisoners to publish under a byline and expunged the prisoner’s disciplinary infractions for doing so. The Court dismissed the prisoner’s “as applied” claims based upon the expungments. In reconsidering whether or not to reinstate those claims, the Court found the prisoner did not bring any new facts or law that was not established prior to the order.
Similarly, prison officials argued a 1989 case that was available to them, plus it was indistinguishable for the case at issue. The Court denied the parties’ motions to reconsider and denied the prison officials’ motion to dismiss because the prisoner’s facial challenge was administratively exhausted and he had standing to bring that claim. See: Jordan v. Pugh, 2006 U.S. District lexis 30051 (D.Colo., 4/17/06).
The court subsequently ruled in favor of the prisoner plaintiff in this case and held the ban on byline was unconstitutional.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Jordan v. Pugh
|Cite||2006 U.S. District lexis 30051 (D.Colo., 4/17/06)|