Petition for Writ of Certiorari — John L. Williams, Petitioner v. Jackson County, Missouri
Supreme Court briefAug 9, 2019
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
r
,r\
i
I
S'
’'U'
'A
V.
?
x
'
Jw
^J,
/ 's A ,
o qJ) H'
0v
No.
Supreme Court, U.S.
FILED
IN THE
AUG 0 9 2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
«A<*Xvv\-
L > Uu>\\l\\4 m S
— PETITIONER
(Your Name)
vs.
Ooiau\-^
tfiV
— RESPONDENT(S)
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
sIiaUs
nf frPPlAls>
%4W
(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
v\olvrt
L «
til*
« K 14X S
(Your Name)
P.0
& ok S'floo
F.Q.I
gUt-A-i
(Address)
.5^
& ^aw
oJlt-g oiA
TT3*7 %
(City, State, Zip Code)
f)(Phone Number)
"RECEIVED
[
OCT 23 2019
ggSJjlcgiiiSsU
\
-A
<;.
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED
© S kbulD Tiv.£_
d O lA
l £ -/4z -fasf
Of flPPf V ,7l3 >ta_ 6+) Tuft-At-P. f « d lo(2.S
4o -fhz X u?_V- A.
a>3kouiCi 4e b;sh;a{ OouRA fiffly +k
(/+} TuR-WtR:' f AC 1 tffts /?/ Su#7>r?#(>p
O/H'/.
o*-sVdoudV
(?) Cm
(3)
V Sum
AfPly V-Weh Vu>;e*_
A u.CX5 •’wt *■ V
A*.'**
®) ^ V
Hx ik<iy
APAy \U. * «*i # xn f4,t. ,1tcA.1 ^>*w>,
r*
x
<
fA
UST of parties
parties appear in fba <spHan of the case on the raver page.
■ petition is ss follow^*
;
:
t
Jk
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
OPINIONS BELOW---- ^------ . ........................
JURISDICTION...—......
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.......................
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT..........
CONCLUSION— .................. ..............~
INDEX TO APPENDICES
APPENDIX A-TudA.^#- V, SfiFtl V* 4*^ it
7 2/ ^9/
€0, &v> (JP4 6w)
APPENDIXB Ffc.tf.s4 V, SYrflitfGW/ 1^7 F*
Li^rti
APPENDIX C PK.'So*
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
A
^^
30 343/35-4
3‘9 7,. f, 30
H~, *t^L'
^***0
9.00s)
w
4
*•>
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED
CASES
\
i/, ^ ft£l(y
U.S.
.7<*,/o? £,£-V.
C01ft_O(*»4 c 1137^
PAGE NUMBER
.
9L
FftosV u, .^xtAirva W
flT-P«*P 3**g,35Vf<?+h..ft m<^
fit-OUJHfiz </, rfe/ottl //X* i»tk£i£\
3
V'l ^'3 0 6>f3L
005*
Qtnrfiirijt
00, u- ay?! - oOcO t 3-om UJL 4<gn39SM, A\
5$ C b» l<*vi,
STATUTES AND RULES
OTHER
dotM-
J
<.
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.
OPINIONS BELOW
[ ] For cases from federal courts:
The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix
the petition and is
to
fto. l"7-/74
[ ] reported at
I or,
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[ ] is unpublished.
The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix
the petition and is
to
U\ 13BcuS
[ ] reported at
; or,
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[ ] is unpublished.
[ ] For cases from state courts:
The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at
Appendix ______to the petition and is
[ ] reported at
; or,
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[ ] is unpublished.
The opinion of the_
appears at Appendix
court
to the petition and is
[ ] reported at
I or,
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[ ] is unpublished.
1.
c
JURISDICTION
[ ] For cases from federal courts:
The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case
was
y!<4i
[✓T^No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.
[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of
Appeals on the following date: J___________
, and a copy of the
order denying rehearing appears at Appendix
[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted
to and including U?Q
<\f{
nn/W /W» lo/ty//<f (date)
in Application No. __ A_______ *
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).
[ ] For cases from state courts:
The date on which the highest state court decided my case was
A copy of that decision appears at Appendix_______
[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:
, and a copy of the order denying rehearing
appears at Appendix
[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted
to and including____
(date) on
(date)in
Application No. __ A
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
(D* Fi$ f
(fc.
R^-iiu | •*
Rt-3«A * V »'©*)
(§). ‘-V-
oA
ir *eAofcS
u%s/ 7^,79,107
^T^t- dot\% V« In V' ah**
TiaA,**.!*.
i/.
softly -
^ ' 6V bLXjth,
(p u
€. ft.
^4 (j<fg7)
-i
•s.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Szt.
i
br. *if
Jts>
u
John L. Williams
° Reg. No. 20194-045
FCI Sheridan
P.0. BOX 5000
Sheridan, OR 97378
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Case No. 17-1742
John L. Williams
Appellant,
v.
Mo. Jackson County
Appellee.
On a Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit
Issues Raised
Jury Instruction
In September 2012, Plaintiff and .two other inmates at the
Jackson County Detention Center, jointly filed a 1983 claim against
Jackson County for their post-card-only policy. The District Court
ORDERED we file individual claims.
Plaintiff, Appellant, claim went to trial.
1
RECEIVED
OCT 2 3 2019
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
SUPREME COURTU g
—*
On March 23rd, 2017, after a three day trial by Jury, judge
ment was entered in favor of the Defendants, Appellee.
Appellant claims the District Court abussed its discretion,
when it presented to the Jury, over the Appellant's objection
Jury instructions (#14) and (#15). The instructions asked the
Jury to apply the (4) Turner Factors, as set forth in the Supreme
Court case. TURNER v. SAFELY, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).
Appellant's arguement was, and still is, that the County's
post-card-only policy was in violation of the First Amendment to
the constitution of the United States.
Prison regulations that restrict an inmates First Amendment
Right are valid if the regulations are reasonably related to a
legitimate penological interest.
To determine whether a correctional institution's regulation
that "Impinges on inmates
constitutional rights" is valid, the
Court (not the Jury) must determine whether that regulation "is
reasonably related to legitimate penological interest."
TURNER v. SAFELY, 482 U.S. 78. 79, 107 S. Ct. 2254, 96 L.
Ed. 2d 64 (1987).
In TURNER, the Supreme Court promulgated "a four-pronged test
that guides Courts in determining whether a challenged regulation
passes constitutional muster. FROST v. SYMINGTON, 197 F.3d 348,
354 (9th Cir 1999).
Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and
the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are Jury
2
functions, likewise determining whetehr TURNER factors are suff
icient to present a legitimate Penilogicai, Interest is for the
Court to establish, not the Jury.
In AL-OWHAI v. HOLDER, (10th Circuit), the Court stated that
an analysis of the four TURNER factors is necessary at the Summary
Judgement stages.
On February 16th, 2017. The District Court issued an order
denying the Defendant's Jackson County's motion for Summary
Judgement at that point the; Court applied, or should have applied
the TURNER factors, now at trial to have the Jury to apply them,
or reeapply them is impermissable and an abuse of discretion.
In TURNER, the .Supreme Court has instructed the lower[courts ]
(not' the Jury) to examine the four factors when determining whether
the regulation withstands scrutiny. The Jury cannot decide what
law, they only decide from the facts, to have them td apply such
complicated factors causes confusion. The judgement of the District
Court should be reversed and remanded for new trial.
Appellant would like to present a final arguement on this
issue:
PRISON LEGAL NEWS v. LEHMAN, 397, F.3d 692 (9th Cir 2005)(noting
that if a regulation is not retionally related to a legitimate neutral
government objective, a.court need-not reach the remaining three
factors.") (Would the Jury know this?)
Jackson County presented no evidence that the policy was implem
ented due to a contraband problem, presented no documentation (not
3
*•>
i
s
■»
$
;■
«.*
1
}
\
;
i
;
i'
!
s..
J
?
f
*
<r'
one incident). Jackie Robinson testified that he could not provide
any documentation to back up the fact that the jail had a problem
with contraband coming in through the mail. Jackson County s -- -postcard policy does not satisfy the first TURNER factor because
it lacks a rational connection to a legitimate governmental interest,
and, therefore a consideration of the remaining TURNER factors is
not necessary. "A post-card-only policy for incoming mail is not
retionally related to the states objectives of enhancing jail security.
If Defendant fails to present any evidence relating to its security
need, threats, or experience." COX v. DENNING, No. 12-2571-DJW, 2014
WL 4843951
at 18 (D. Kan. Sept. 29, 2014 (emphasis added); see also
COLUMBIA CITY, 942 F. Supp. at 1083-85. As Judge Waxse recently noted
in COX; "merely accepting Defendant's arguement of a rational relationship without any evidence or a logical explanation of why the post
card-only policy advances a particular legitimate Penological Interest would render the standard toothless
which the Supreme Court
has cautioned against."
Jackson County has failed at trial
to produce any evidence that the post-card-only policy was enacted
in response to a valid mail security problem. Nor did Jackson County
provide documented instances of contraband entering the jail through
the mail. Moreover
Summary Judgement should have been granted to
the Plaintiff for this very reason, and not given to the Jury to
determine the TURNER factors.
The Plaintiff prays this Court finds in his favor and will
4
p 1
*!
reverse the Judgement and Remand for a new trial.
A.U
Dated this i3w
day of
, 2019.
John L. Williams
Reg No. 20194-045
FCI Sheridan
P.0. BOX 5000
Sheridan, OR 97378
t
Certificate of Service - I, John L. Williams do declare that a true
and correct copy of the above said motion was sent via U.S. mail to
the Supreme Court Clerk on this 12th day of August, 2019.
5
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
Ttv.5 PtA.-Vio* sftouto
a
fee-WMSt M/s
& <JA-St a A pifol XniPiLv$S',0* Art O # 6ASZ *r
x tufa A -tnnet. .
7~fi'S
P* // /•'ort
sliPCi/£>
fiz 3 & Hnjrto
A G> V R.
SltotxiO xssvt Stc^st. -rt£gt jrs „0
e#s%-rn tukscif # Pinson Rz3hI«.Uo<a £#sio
#
A
p/*+**1 ^*s
St£/) '/giio J#
(%y/£ >”*"«
A J«AY,
♦«.«.. hi. uii t*'*#fifity
Ttt
Of) friMU
f'4/j
/9
OF P«(L$\,
€*$Sr
#«o
/?#/;***-(
•\.*\?(LLS±,'0*t,
Af
;
/ /9-ri|2»
fi. c *S£-
Ji
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
Date:
/o/m//?
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.