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

Email: susan.prose@usdoj.gov

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