In re Bulk Mailing to County Jail Inmates
Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel:
After considering all argument of counsel, we will deny the motion, even though it is unopposed
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these actions is denied.
SCHEDULE A
MDL No. 2363 — IN RE: BULK MAILING TO COUNTY JAIL INMATES IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Eastern District of Washington
Crime, Justice & America, Inc., et al. v. Doug Barger, et al., C.A. No. 2:12-00112
Crime, Justice & America, Inc., et al. v. G. Ken Bancroft, et al., C.A. No. 2:12-00113
Crime, Justice & America, Inc., et al. v. Brian Burnett, et al., C.A. No. 2:12-00114
Crime, Justice & America, Inc., et al. v. Frank T. Rogers, et al., C.A. No. 2:12-00115
Crime, Justice & America, Inc., et al. v. Wade Magers, et al., C.A. No. 2:12-00116
Crime, Justice & America, Inc., et al. v. Brett Myers, et al., C.A. No. 2:12-00117
Crime, Justice & America, Inc., et al. v. Tom Jones, et al., C.A. No. 2:12-00118
Crime, Justice & America, Inc., et al. v. Gene Dana, et al., C.A. No. 2:12-03016
Crime, Justice & America, Inc., et al. v. Rick McComas, et al., C.A. No. 2:12-03018
Crime, Justice & America, Inc., et al. v. Ken Irwin, et al., C.A. No. 2:12-03019
Crime, Justice & America, Inc., et al. v. Steven Keane, et al., C.A. No. 2:12-05020
Crime, Justice & America, Inc., et al. v. Richard Lathim, et al., C.A. No. 2:12-05021
Crime, Justice & America, Inc., et al. v. John Turner, et al., C.A. No. 2:12-05022
Western District of Washington
Crime, Justice & America, Inc., et al. v. John Lovick, C.A. No. 2:12-00294
Crime, Justice & America, Inc., et al. v. Bill Benedict, et al., C.A. No. 3:12-05143
Crime, Justice & America, Inc., et al. v. Casey Salisbury, et al., C.A. No. 3:12-05144
Crime, Justice & America, Inc, et al. v. Tony Hernandez, et al., C.A. No. 3:12-05145
Crime, Justice & America, Inc., et al. v. Steven Mansfield, et al., C.A. No. 3:12-05146
Judge Kathryn H. Vratil took no part in the decision of this matter.
. Responding defendants are defendants in sixteen actions: Eastern District of Washington Bancroft, Barger, Burnett, Dana, Irwin, Jones, Keane, Lathim, Magers, McComas, Rogers, and Turner and Western District of Washington Benedict, Hernandez, Lovick, and Salisbury.
. As we have previously stated, we have "an institutional responsibility that goes beyond simply accommodating the particular wishes of the parties” to actions subject to a Section 1407 motion for centralization. See, e.g, In re: Equinox Fitness Wage & Hour Emp't Practices Litig., 764 F.Supp.2d 1347, 1348 (J.P.M.L. 2011) (denying unopposed motion for centralization).
. The complaint in each action alleges that the defendants therein (typically, the county, the facility, and the county sheriff) adopted and implemented policies that unconstitutionally restrict plaintiffs from providing the publication to inmates at the subject facility.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.