Sunday 11 February 2018

Rev Matt Hale (Civil Case)... Response to Plaintiff's Motion Reguarding Declarations


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00245-MSK-MJW

REVEREND MATT HALE,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Defendant.
 
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION REGARDING DECLARATIONS (DOC. 206)
Mr. Hale seeks to have the Court accept filings from persons who are not parties to this case. Doc. 206, “Motion to Allow Declarations by Non-Parties to be Filed.” These declarations are related to a prior “Notice,” in which Mr. Hale raises several allegations against the BOP. Doc. 204, “Notice of Recent Continuing Unlawful Activity by the Defendant and its Employees Germane to the Eventual Resolution of this Case” (“Notice”). The Court should deny the motion because the Notice itself is not a proper filing under the procedures established by this Court.

The Notice is the fourth in a pattern of filings that are actually extra briefs related to the
pending motion for summary judgment. See Doc. 200 (“Clarification Regarding Press

Release(s)”); Doc. 201 (“Notice of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedy Regarding Ban on All
of Plaintiff’s Religious Mail”); Doc. 202 (“Motion to Strike and Response to So-Called ‘Fact
Exhibit’”). Mr. Hale describes this most recent Notice as containing “allegations” against the BOP that he deems to be “Germane to the Eventual Resolution of this Case.” Doc. 204 at 1;
 

Doc. 206 at 2 (discussing Hale’s “allegations”). Briefing on the motion for summary judgment
has closed, and the Court should not countenance Mr. Hale’s fourth attempt to submit an
improper surreply. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d) (full briefing on a motion consists of the
motion, response, and reply); see also C.J. Krieger Civ. Practice Standard 7.6.2(c) (discussing
motion for summary judgment, response, and reply).1 Therefore, no supporting declarations in
support of the Notice are warranted.

In any event, if the Court examines the substance of Mr. Hale’s filings, the factual allegations in the Notice and subsequent motion for declarations are inaccurate. Mr. Hale accuses the BOP of violating “federal law and B.O.P. policy” by returning mail to his followers in October and November 2017, and that the former Warden of the ADX “lied” to his mother
about the address for the ADX. Doc. 204 ¶¶ 3-5; see also id. ¶ 8 (noting that Hale is trying to get
an ADX Special Investigative Services Technician arrested). In fact, the mailing address for
inmates incarcerated at the ADX is P.O. Box 8000, but mailings sent to P.O. Box 8500 are also delivered to inmates, including Mr. Hale. Declaration of Amy Kelley, Exhibit 1 ¶¶ 8-10.

It is also not the case that the BOP “is stopping [Mr. Hale] from receiving mail” from the persons from whom he has solicited declarations. Doc. 206 at 2. Since Mr. Hale was re-designated to the ADX in April 2017, he has received 52 letters that included “a declaration for
this action or the copy of some sort of pleading or filing by that correspondent in this action.” Id.
1 See also Partminer Worldwide Inc. v. Silconexpert Technologies Inc., No. 09-cv-00586-MSKMJW,
2011 WL 587971, at *6 (D. Colo. Feb. 9, 2011) (recognizing that, “when a party believes
that the contentions in the opponent’s reply brief require a response, the proper approach is for
the party to seek leave to file a surreply,” and finding that a party’s “objections to misstatements
in [a] reply brief . . . were an improper surreply”) (citing Pippin v. Burlington Resources Oil &
Gas Co., 440 F.3d 1186, 1192 (10th Cir. 2006)).

 
¶ 17. He has received declarations from his followers as recently as February 2018. Id. During
the entire period from April 2017 to the present, the BOP has rejected only three incoming
mailings that included a correspondent’s declaration, and that was because the mailings also
contained security threat group information, which inmates are not allowed to possess. Id. ¶ 18.

Those mailings were not rejected because of the declarations. Id.
Finally, by BOP policy, Mr. Hale cannot receive books from persons or entities
masquerading as bookstores. See Doc. 204 ¶ 7 (contending that he has not been allowed to
receive a “final Creativity book”). The book was rejected because the BOP could not determine
the identity of the sender—someone or something that called itself “MBookman Bookseller.”
Exhibit 1 ¶¶ 13-14. As the ADX Special Investigative Services Lieutenant explains, “[a]
publication does not need to be sent by Amazon or similar retail corporation in order to be
approved, but it must have some indicia of legitimacy or ways that correctional staff—who must
cull through voluminous records to determine when outside actors are passing unsafe, unsecure,
or dangerous information to convicted inmates—can determine its status as a publisher, book
club, or bookstore.” Id. ¶ 14. Here, the necessary indicia of legitimacy of “MBookman” was completely lacking. Id.

 
The Court should deny Mr. Hale’s motion. Doc. 206.

Respectfully submitted on February 9, 2018.

ROBERT C. TROYER

United States Attorney
s/ Susan Prose


Susan Prose

Assistant United States Attorney
1801 California Street, Suite 1600
Denver, Colorado 80202
Tel.: (303) 454-0100; Fax: (303) 454-0404
Counsel for the Federal Bureau of Prisons
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF)
I hereby certify that on February 9, 2018, I served the foregoing document2 on the
following non-CM/ECF participant by United States mail addressed as follows:

Matthew Hale
Reg. No. 15177-424
ADX – Florence
P.O. Box 8500
Florence, CO 81226
s/ Susan Prose


Susan Prose

United States Attorney’s Office
2 A copy of the unpublished case cited in this response was previously provided to Mr. Hale.
 


                                                     THE CREATIVITY MOVEMENT
 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment