Holloway v. Magness
| Decision Date | 21 January 2011 |
| Docket Number | NO. 5:07CV00088 JLH-BD,5:07CV00088 JLH-BD |
| Parties | WINSTON HOLLOWAY, ADC # 67507; and JOSEPH BREAULT, ADC # 79659 PLAINTIFFS v. BENNY MAGNESS, et al. DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
This is another in a long line of cases brought by inmates challenging the economic arrangements pursuant to which telephone services are made available to them. In Arkansas, as in many states, the prison system contracted with a telephone company for telephone services to inmates and, in return, the telephone company pays the prison system a percentage of the revenue that is received on inmate telephone calls. The issue before the Court is whether such a contract violates the First Amendment rights of inmates. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The magistrate judge to whom this case was referred recommended that the Court hold that the primary jurisdiction and filed rate doctrines do not bar the plaintiffs' claims and that the contract violates the First Amendment rights of inmates. The magistrate judge recommended that the Court enjoin the telephone company from paying, and the prison system from collecting, a portion of the revenue generated by inmate telephone calls but did not recommend that the Court order the telephone company to reduce its rates. The parties have filed timely objections to the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommended disposition, and the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record. The Court agrees with the magistrate judge that the claims of the plaintiffs are not barred by the primary jurisdiction and filed rate doctrines, and the Court adopts that portion of the proposed findings and recommended disposition as the ruling of the Court on those issues. The Court does not agree that the contract between the telephone company and the prisonsystem violates the First Amendment rights of inmates and therefore declines to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge on that issue.
A court should enter summary judgment if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.1 A genuine issue of material fact exists only if there is sufficient evidence to allow a jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.2
In 2006 the State of Arkansas solicited bids from telephone service providers for the exclusive rights to establish and maintain an inmate telephone system at Arkansas Department of Correction and Department of Community Correction facilities. Global Tel*Link responded to the request for proposal and offered to pay the Arkansas Department of Correction and the Department of Community Correction a percentage of all gross revenues collected by it for calls under the proposed contract. In turn, the State would make Global Tel*Link the exclusive provider of telephone services to inmates of the Arkansas Department of Correction and the Department of Community Correction. During negotiations, Global Tel*Link offered to pay a fifty-five percent commission contingent on the following rates:
-------------------------------------------------
| |Interstate|IntraLATA|InterLATA|Local|
|----------|----------|---------|---------|-----|
|Surcharge |$3.95 |$3.00 |$3.00 |$3.00|
|----------|----------|---------|---------|-----|
|Per Minute|$0.89 |$0.24 |$0.24 |$0.24|
-------------------------------------------------
The Board of Corrections3 requested further negotiations for a lower rate for those who call inmates. Global Tel*Link made two subsequent offers: Option A included a 50.75 percent commission and the following rates:
-------------------------------------------------
| |Interstate|IntraLATA|InterLATA|Local|
|----------|----------|---------|---------|-----|
|Surcharge |$3.95 |$3.00 |$3.00 |$3.00|
|----------|----------|---------|---------|-----|
|Per Minute|$0.67 |$0.18 |$0.18 |$0.18|
-------------------------------------------------
Option B included a forty-five percent commission and the following rates:
-------------------------------------------------
| |Interstate|IntraLATA|InterLATA|Local|
|----------|----------|---------|---------|-----|
|Surcharge |$3.95 |$3.00 |$3.00 |$3.00|
|----------|----------|---------|---------|-----|
|Per Minute|$0.45 |$0.12 |$0.12 |$0.12|
-------------------------------------------------
The Board of Corrections chose Option B.
On January 19, 2007, the Office of State Procurement, on behalf of the State of Arkansas, formally accepted Global Tel*Link's bid and entered into a five-year contract with Global Tel*Link. Under the terms of the contract, Global Tel*Link agreed to provide a collect call telephone system for use by inmates housed in the Arkansas Department of Correction and the Department of Community Correction from February 15, 2007, through February 14, 2012. Pursuant to the contract, Global Tel*Link pays the required percentage of revenue to the Arkansas Department of Correction and the Department of Community Correction on a monthly basis. Inmates of the Arkansas Department of Correction and the Department of Community Correction are not allowed to receive telephone calls from family members, friends, or other people outside of the facility, nor are they allowed to use prepaid telephone cards or cellular phones. They are permitted, however, to make collect calls, i.e., calls for which the receiving party agrees to pay. Virtually every Arkansas Department of Correction and Department of Community Correction inmate-initiated call, whether long distance or local, is subject to and handled under the contract.
As a result of the contract with Global Tel*Link, the Arkansas Department of Correction and the Department of Community Correction have earned more than $ 2 million per year in revenue, which is used to pay for inmate benefits, operational needs, safety and security needs, and "quality of life projects." "Quality of life" projects include such things as metal detectors, emergency and security equipment, computer equipment and maintenance, lock and door replacements, medical services equipment, radio and communication maintenance, building construction and maintenance, weapons, and "gate checks, " which are given to inmates when they are released from prison.4 None of the revenue derived from the contract is used for telephone-related expenditures. Under the terms of the contract, Global Tel*Link covers all costs associated with the telephone system, including hardware, software, billing, and monitoring at no cost to the State, the Arkansas Department of Correction, or the Department of Community Correction.
Winston Holloway and Joseph Breault are inmates in the Arkansas Department of Correction. They contend that they are unable to make as many calls as they otherwise would because of the substantial burden that the forty-five percent commission imposes on them and their families. In addition to the per minute rate and surcharge for each call, if a family member prepays into anaccount used to pay for calls from inmates, Global Tel*Link charges an additional $9.50 for each $50.00 of prepayment. With this nineteen percent prepayment charge, a ten-minute long distance call costs an inmate's family approximately $9.30.
Holloway calls one of his two sons, who is in the United States Army and is based in Arizona, when he is in the United States. When his son is overseas, Holloway calls his daughter-in-law and his grandchildren in Arizona. He makes such calls about once a month. Holloway's son and family visit Holloway once every few years. Holloway also calls one of his two sisters, who live in Lufkin, Texas, about once each month. His sister tries to visit him in person at least once a year. Holloway's other sister has not visited him in three or four years. Letters from Holloway's family are very infrequent. His grandchildren do not write letters to him, and he seldom gets letters from his sister, his son, or his daughter-in-law.
Breault makes two calls to his closest friend outside of prison each week. His friend also visits him one or two times each month.
Any visits that the plaintiffs have with family members or friends generally last less than four hours. The plaintiffs also state that letters are no substitute for telephone calls because they are so infrequent, voices and emotions cannot be heard, and, in Holloway's case, they do not keep him in touch with his grandchildren. Inmates of the Arkansas Department of Correction are not allowed to use email.
In their complaint, amended complaint, and second amended complaint, the plaintiffs claimed that the telephone charges were unlawful on several grounds, and they also contended that medical co-pay requirements imposed upon them by the Arkansas Department of Correction were unconstitutional. As the case developed, the plaintiffs dismissed all of their claims except their First Amendment claims relating to the contract for inmate telephone services.5 The plaintiffs then filed a motion for summary judgment, and the defendants filed cross motions for summary judgment. Among other things, Global Tel*Link contended that the plaintiffs' claims are barred by the primary jurisdiction doctrine and the filed rate doctrine.
The magistrate judge recommended that the Court grant the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in part, by enjoining Global Tel*Link from paying a percentage of the revenue from inmate telephone calls to the Arkansas Department of Correction during the remaining term of the contract and by enjoining the Arkansas Department of Correction from accepting any payments from Global Tel*Link during the remaining term of the contract. The magistrate judge declined to recommend that the Court order Global Tel*Link to reduce its rates. The magistrate judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial