At issue is the refusal of the DOC to give Mr. Eaddy Direct Acting Anti-Viral drugs (“DAAs”) to cure his Hepatitis C. The DAA medication is known to have a 90% success rate in treating individuals who suffer from chronic Hepatitis C, but the DOC denies providing potentially life-saving DAAs in favor of a costly and burdensome monitoring program. Mr. Eaddy’s illness is exacerbated by the fact he also suffers from diabetes, anemia, and kidney disease which means the denial of medical care not only subjects him to irreversible harm but also places him at risk of death.
Morally and legally, the DOC is failing in its job to ensure Mr. Eaddy receives appropriate medical care. We demand he receive DAA treatment immediately.
While there are over 5,000 incarcerated persons who have Hepatitis C, the DOC ceased treating incarcerated persons in 2013, when DAA medications became readily available. The DOC instead created a treatment protocol to limit incarcerated persons access to DAA medications despite the epidemic levels of diagnosis. This protocol was found to be “a conscious disregard of a known risk of advanced cirrhosis and death…” and ruled unconstitutional in 2017. The DOC refuses to treat Hepatitis C patients with DAA medication instead chooses to ration care to preserve their bottom line risking lives such as Mr. Eaddy’s in the process. Moreover, the DOC protocol falls below the recommendations set forth by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and supported by the Center for Disease Control (CDC).
Plaintiffs submitted an expert report from Dr. Stacey Beth Trookin , who sits on the Treatment Guidance Panel for the AASLD and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), finding the current DOC protocol is substandard care that is medically indefensible. Additionally, she found the DAA treatments are cost effective and medically necessary as a matter of public health, especially when the individuals are suffering from other illnesses such as diabetes.
Even though Lester Eaddy’s preexisting medical conditions put him at a Priority level 3, signaling the necessity of the treatment, he has yet to receive the DAA medications. Since the DOC continuously fails to live up to the recommended standard of care and treat individual with the DAA treatments by ignoring Mr. Eaddy’s repeated request for medical care, this lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction to ensure Lester Eaddy receives the DAA treatment.
Contact:
Bret Grote, Abolitionist Law Center, bretgrote@abolitionistlawcenter.org, 412-654-9070
Mumia to receive treatment with direct-acting antiviral medications within 21-days
January 3, 2017: Federal district court Judge Robert Mariani granted political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal’s request for a preliminary injunction, forcing the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) to provide him with direct-acting antiviral (DAA) drugs capable of curing his chronic hepatitis C infection. During an evidentiary hearing in December 2015, it was shown that Abu-Jamal had a chronic hepatitis C infection that was progressively attacking his liver, causing scarring, a severe, itchy, painful skin rash that had lasted more than 18 months, and anemia of chronic disease.
Mr. Abu-Jamal is represented by Bret Grote of the Abolitionist Law Center and attorney Robert J. Boyle. “We are gratified by Judge Mariani’s decision and urge the PA DOC to administer these life saving drugs to Mr. Abu Jamal without further delay,” said Robert J. Boyle on hearing the news of the courts decision. Bret Grote, Legal Director at the Abolitionist Law Center and attorney representing Mumia Abu-Jamal said, “This is the first case in the country in which a federal court has ordered prison officials to provide an incarcerated patient with the new [hepatitis C] medications that came on the market in 2013.”
The legal victory comes after Judge Mariani denied an earlier request for a preliminary injunction, holding that Abu-Jamal had failed to file his lawsuit against the correct defendants. However, the judge also held at that time that the DOC’s treatment protocol for hepatitis C violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, and once members of the DOC’s Hepatitis C Treatment Committee were added as defendants the judge could issue a favorable injunction. The current decision follows the filing of a related case by attorneys for Abu-Jamal on September 30, 2016, which included members of the Hepatitis C Treatment Committee as defendants.
Quoting from his earlier decision, Judge Mariani described the DOC’s protocol for hepatitis C treatment:
[T]he effect of the protocol is to delay administration of DAA medications until the inmate faces the imminent prospect of “catastrophic” rupture and bleeding out of the esophageal vessels. Additionally, by denying treatment until inmates have “advanced disease” as marked by esophageal varices, the interim protocol prolongs the suffering of those who have been diagnosed with chronic Hepatitis C and allows the progression of the disease to accelerate so that it presents a greater threat of cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and death of the inmate with such disease.
The judge also rejected the DOC’s argument that recent changes to the protocol had resolved the constitutional violation, holding that the new protocol “suffers from the same fatal flaw as the interim protocol” because it “refuses, without medical justification, to provide treatment… and also imposes an unreasonable condition—having vast fibrosis or cirrhosis—on treatment.”
There are more than 5,400 people in DOC custody with chronic hepatitis C, and more than 99% of them are not receiving treatment. Newly developed medications have a cure rate of 95% or more in clinical trials, but the DOC has been refusing to provide the cure due to its high cost.
Federal Court Finds DOC’s Hepatitis C Protocol Unconstitutional But Requires New Defendants Be Added to Lawsuit Before Ordering Treatment for Mumia Abu-Jamal
September 1, 2016: Federal district court judge Robert Mariani denied political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal’s request for a preliminary injunction on Wednesday, August 1st that would have forced the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) to provide him with direct-acting antiviral drugs capable of curing his hepatitis C. The opinion, however, also held that the DOC’s hepatitis C protocol violates the Eighth Amendment by withholding the medication to incarcerated patients with chronic hepatitis C, and that when Mr. Abu-Jamal adds members of the DOC’s Hepatitis C Treatment Committee the judge can issue a favorable injunction.
There are more than 5,400 people in DOC custody with chronic hepatitis C, and more than 99% of them are not receiving treatment. Newly-developed medications have a cure rate of 95% or more in clinical trials, but the DOC has been refusing to provide the cure due to its high cost.
The court found that “the standard of care with respect to the treatment of chronic Hepatitis C is the administration of the newly-developed DAA [direct-acting antiviral] medications, such as Harvoni, Sovaldi, and Viekira Pak.” The court then found that the DOC’s hepatitis C treatment protocol “prolong[s] the suffering of those who have been diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C and allow[s] the progression of the disease to accelerate so that it presents a greater threat of cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma [i.e. liver cancer], and death of the inmate with such disease” in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The DOC’s protocol “presents a conscious disregard of a known risk of advanced cirrhosis and death by esophageal hemorrhage” due to its refusal to authorize hepatitis C treatment until a patient already has advanced cirrhosis and esophageal varices, a condition that can lead to fatal hemorrhaging of the blood vessels in the esophagus.
The court did not grant the injunction, however, because it found that members of the DOC’s Hepatitis C Committee had to be added as defendants: “a mandatory injunction favorable to Plaintiff would necessarily require that the individuals enjoined be able to exercise control over the contents or application of the protocol.”
The DOC’s current treatment protocol for hepatitis C was ruled in violation of the Eighth Amendment in no uncertain terms: “In the wake of the advent of curative Hepatitis C medications, Defendants have charted a course that denies treatment to inmates until they are on the verge of a ‘catastrophic’ health event, a decision that appears to contain a ‘fiscal component,’ and ignores the standard of care for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C.”
Abolitionist Law Center’s Legal Director Bret Grote said the following about the decision: “While we are disappointed the court did not grant the injunction at this time, its holding that incarcerated patients with hepatitis C are entitled to treatment with the breakthrough medications that cure hepatitis C and that the DOC’s current protocol violates the Eighth Amendment sets a powerful precedent for Mr. Abu-Jamal, the more than 5,400 prisoners with chronic hepatitis C in Pennsylvania, and tens of thousands incarcerated with untreated hepatitis C across the country. We won everything but the injunction we sought, and will be moving expeditiously to bring additional defendants before the court so Mr. Abu-Jamal can receive the treatment he is entitled to under the U.S. Constitution.”
Attorneys for Abu-Jamal file brief slamming DOC for withholding treatment
On Friday, March 11, attorneys for political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal filed their post-hearing brief in support of Abu-Jamal’s motion for a preliminary injunction ordering the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections to provide him with treatment for his hepatitis C. The 30-page brief summarized the extensive factual record from a 3-day evidentiary hearing held at the end of December 2015.
During the December hearing it was shown that Abu-Jamal has a chronic hepatitis C infection that is progressively attacking his liver, causing scarring, a severe, itchy, painful skin rash that has lasted more than 18 months, and anemia of chronic disease. Abu-Jamal also experienced a nearly fatal attack of diabetes in March 2015 that is also likely related to his hepatitis C.
There were surprises at the hearing as well. The head of the DOC’s clinical services, Dr. Paul Noel, revealed that tests conducted by the DOC show that there is a 63% chance that Abu-Jamal has cirrhosis, which means that the disease has progressed to the point that it is causing irreversible and worsening inflammation and scarring throughout his liver. Despite the extraordinary danger posed by Abu-Jamal’s condition, Noel testified under oath that the DOC will not provide treatment unless a patient has advanced cirrhosis and the presence of esophageal varices, which means that the patient is at risk of bleeding to death.
As argued in Abu-Jamal’s brief: “It is shocking to the conscience that the DOC thinks it is acceptable to withhold medical care until one’s liver has suffered irreversible damage accompanied by such severe damage to the blood vessels that the patient is literally at risk of bleeding to death. No matter whether such “active surveillance” is called treatment or not, it is a gross departure from medical ethics and constitutional requirements.”
Dr. Noel also revealed on cross examination that DOC counsel had submitted a falsified document in his name in September in 2015 that contained inaccurate and misleading medical information that was then used as the basis for DOC’s argument against plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.
Mumia Abu-Jamal is represented by Bret Grote of the Abolitioist Law Center and Robert Boyle.
Untreated Diabetes nearly killed Abu-Jamal in March, and the DOC is refusing to treat his active Hepatitis C
August 3, 2015: Attorneys for political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal filed an amended lawsuit today in the Middle District of Pennsylvania federal court to challenge prison medical staff’s denial of necessary medical treatment – denial that nearly killed Abu-Jamal earlier this year.
On March 30, 2015, Abu-Jamal was rushed to the hospital after losing consciousness and going into diabetic shock. Although prison medical staff were aware that Abu-Jamal had a dangerously high blood glucose level of 419 on March 6, they failed to treat, monitor, or even inform Abu-Jamal of his condition. Glucose levels like those that Abu-Jamal had can result in diabetic shock, diabetic coma, and death.
Abu-Jamal’s diabetic shock came in the midst of an escalating year-long health crisis that began with a rash in August 2014. The skin condition grew in intensity over the course of the next several months, eventually covering most of his body with a painful, severe rash that is resistant to conventional treatments. The skin condition is abnormal in its duration and intensity, and has led to lesions, open wounds, and swelling.
The lawsuit filed today seeks injunctive relief for prison medical staff’s failure to treat Abu-Jamal’s active Hepatitis C. Recent blood tests provided at the insistence of Abu-Jamal, his lawyers, and consulting doctors have confirmed that Abu-Jamal has active Hepatitis C, which is likely the underlying cause of his health crisis. Despite the undeniable medical evidence that he is in need of treatment for his Hepatitis C, prison medical staff are refusing to provide any.
Advances in Hepatitis C treatment in recent years have revolutionized the way the disease is treated, with new direct-acting anti-viral medications that have had over 95% success rates in curing the illness in clinical trials. The medications, however, are extraordinarily expensive in the United States due to monopoly pricing practices by the pharmaceutical companies that have patented them.
The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections has yet to promulgate a new protocol for treating Hepatitis C with the new medications, meaning that the estimated 10,000-plus people in DOC custody who have Hepatitis C are not receiving any treatment.
This issue is the subject of a class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania federal court in June 2015.
Abu-Jamal is represented by Bret Grote of the Abolitionist Law Center and Robert J. Boyle of New York City.
MEDIA RELEASE: Lawsuit seeks attorney and family access to Mumia Abu-Jamal
Abu-Jamal has been held virtually incommunicado in the hospital for a week
May 18, 2015: This morning attorneys for political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal filed a lawsuit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania federal court seeking immediate access to their client, who has been held virtually incommunicado at the Geisinger Medical Center since Tuesday, May 12. Abu-Jamal has been denied all communication with his attorneys since that time.
Read the Complaint and Memorandum in Support of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. (Other documents from the filing below)
Bret Grote of the Abolitionist Law Center and Robert Boyle, attorneys for Abu-Jamal, are plaintiffs in the action along with Abu-Jamal. A motion for preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order was filed with the lawsuit asking that the court issue an order granting Abu-Jamal visitation with his attorneys and wife, Wadiya Jamal.
On Tuesday May 12th in the evening Mumia was taken from the prison infirmary to Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, PA. Since that night he has not been allowed any visits and has been prevented by the hospital and the PA DOC from his constitutionally protected access to the courts and counsel. In addition, his immediate family members have been prevented from visiting him.
This legal action seeks to immediately restore Mr. Abu-Jamal’s constitutional right to access the courts.
Bret Grote, notes:
“The DOC is once again demonstrating its contempt for human rights and proper health care by holding Mumia Abu-Jamal incommunicado from his family and lawyers. Instead of recognizing the value of family support and legal consultation in protecting and improving his health, the DOC is treating Mumia like a piece of property that it can withhold access to and information about arbitrarily and with impunity.”
According to Abu-Jamal’s attorney, Robert Boyle, “The immediate relatives of a prisoner have a right to know the medical status of their loved ones in the case of hospitalization; and all prisoners have a right to communicate with their attorney, especially in case of an emergency. That my client and his family have been deprived of these rights is a constitutional violation.”
Attorneys, plaintiffs, and supporters after trial of Abu-Jamal v. Kane
On Tuesday, April 28, 2015, Chief Judge for the federal court of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Christopher Connor, ruled in favor of plaintiffs in the consolidated cases of Abu-Jamal v. Kane and Prison Legal News v. Kane and held the recently enacted Silencing Act unconstitutional.
“The court concludes that the challenged statute betrays several constitutional requirements; the enactment is unlawfully purposed, vaguely executed, and patently overbroad in scope. However well-intentioned its legislative efforts, the General Assembly fell woefully short of the mark. The result is a law that is manifestly unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to plaintiffs. Thus, the court is compelled to grant plaintiffs’ requests for declaratory relief, declare the Revictimization Relief Act, 18 PA. CONS.STAT. § 11.1304, to be violative of the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and permanently enjoin its enforcement.”
The so-called Revictimization Relief Act was passed in response to Abolitionist Law Center client and imprisoned intellectual and journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal’s commencement address to Goddard College students in October 2014. Abu-Jamal’s commencement address led to yet another campaign of repression and censorship by the Fraternal Order of Police and the Pennsylvania political establishment designed to silence Mumia and any other former or current prisoner who’s speech roused the ire of prosecutors or crime victims.
In a crushing victory, the court found that all of the plaintiffs’ primary arguments against the constitutionality of the statute had merit: “Plaintiffs assert three principal challenges: first, that the Act is a content-based regulation of speech unjustified by compelling government interests; second, that it is impermissibly vague; and third, that it is substantially overbroad, all in violation of the United States Constitution. Each challenge is meritorious.”
Finding the statute “unlawfully purposed,” the court chastised the legislature for passing a law that was “manifestly unconstitutional” on account of the U.S. Supreme Court holding more than 20 years ago that restricting free expression for the purpose of protecting crime victims from mental anguish is unconstitutional:
“In the Revictimization Act, the Commonwealth articulates that which the state of New York in Simon & Schuster did not—an explicit intent to enjoin expression that causes mental anguish in crime victims. Compare 18 PA. CONS.STAT. § 11.1304 (“Revictimization Relief Act” (emphasis added)), with Simon & Schuster, 502 U.S. at 118 (“The [state] disclaims, as it must, any interest in suppressing descriptions of crime out of solicitude for the sensibilities of readers.”). Simon & Schuster, in conjunction with decades of Supreme Court precedent, seals the Act’s fate. Even the noblest governmental intentions cannot cure impermissible legislation when the United States Supreme Court has explicitly foreclosed the legislation’s purpose. See Simon & Schuster, 502 U.S. at 118; see also Snyder, 131 S.Ct. at 1218 (holding that even when expression “inflict[s] great pain … we cannot react … by punishing the speaker”). Hence, the court must strike the Revictimization Relief Act for its impermissible infringement on the constitutional guarantee of free expression.”
The court observed that the law was so indefensible that the Attorney General of Pennsylvania’s counsel was forced to distort the legislative intent of the statute in a futile effort to argue that the law conformed with constitutional precedent:
“During oral argument, the Attorney General conceded that her office is uncertain whether even Maureen Faulkner—the victim- catalyst for the legislation—could successfully obtain relief under the Act. (Tr. 35:25 (“They could certainly attempt to … [but] I don’t believe that they could necessarily secure it.”)). Such equivocality reflects the impossibility of defending this law: the weight of precedent has forced the Attorney General to contort the legislature’s vision so as to render it unrecognizable from its original intent. (See, e.g., id.)”
The opinion concluded with First Amendment truisms as well as an acknowledgment that the legal and appropriate way to counter speech one disagrees with is by speech, not repressive legislation:
“The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech extends to convicted felons whose expressive conduct is ipso facto controversial or offensive. The right to free expression is the shared right to empower and uplift, and to criticize and condemn; to call to action, and to beg restraint; to debate with rancor, and to accede with reticence; to advocate offensively, and to lobby politely. Indeed, the “high purpose” of the foremost amendment is perhaps best displayed through its protection of speech that some find reprehensible. Johnson, 491 U.S. at 408–09 (“[Free speech] may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” (quoting Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949))). The United States Constitution precludes any state enactment that effectively limits expressive conduct when
the essential injury is personal affront. 13 See Coleman, 335 F.Supp. at 589.
The victims who have suffered at the hands of certain plaintiffs are not without remedies. Victims are free to protest inmate speech through demonstrations, picketing, or public debate. They may publish responsive leaflets and editorials. As Maureen Faulkner did, victims may air their grievances to the press. Indeed, the victims’ discourse may include expressive conduct that plaintiffs themselves find objectionable. The First Amendment does not evanesce at any gate, and its enduring guarantee of freedom of speech subsumes the right to expressive conduct that some may find offensive.”
The trial for Abu-Jamal v. Kane happened on the same day that news of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s health crisis reached his supporters. This post provides a summary of both events, and includes links for further updates on efforts to defend Mumia’s life.
On March 30th, a trial was held in the federal court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in the cases of Abu-Jamal v. Kane and Prison Legal News v. Kane, two lawsuits challenging the Silencing Act. The Pennsylvania General Assembly passed the Silencing Act, also known as 18 P.S. § 11.1304, last October. The law allows the Attorney General, county District Attorneys, and victims of personal injury crimes to bring lawsuits in civil court against “offenders” of a personal injury crime, in order to enjoin conduct that “perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim.” Actions that could prompt a lawsuit include “conduct which causes a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish.”
The law was passed in response to Mumia Abu-Jamal’s delivery of a pre-recorded commencement speech for students at Goddard College. Leading up to and in the wake of this speech, the Fraternal Order of Police, Governor Corbett, Department of Corrections Secretary John Wetzel, Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams, and a number of legislators staged a media campaign designed to whip up a frenzy of support for depriving Abu-Jamal, and any other “offender,” of their constitutional right to free speech.
Two weeks after the bill was signed into law by former Governor Corbett, Abolitionist Law Center and co-counsel filed a lawsuit on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal, Prison Radio, the Human Rights Coalition, Robert Holbrook, Kerry Marshall, Donnell Palmer, Anthony Chance, and Educators for Mumia Abu-Jamal. The lawsuit is seeking a declaration that the statute is unconstitutional and an injunction against its use by the Attorney General and the District Attorney for Philadelphia.
Plaintiffs in Abu-Jamal v. Kane filed a motion for preliminary injunction on the same day the ACLU of Pennsylvania filed Prison Legal News v. Kane, which was also seeking to overturn the law. Both cases were before Chief Judge Conner in late February for a hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss. Judge Conner dismissed the claims against District Attorney Seth Williams from both lawsuits in a ruling on March 7th based on his explicit disavowal of enforcement, a promise to not bring a lawsuit under the Act, until there is a determination of its constitutionality. The District Attorney was a prominent supporter of the law prior to its passage by the Pennsylvania General Assembly. The judge also ruled that the Plaintiffs in the two cases could proceed to trial on the claims against the Attorney General, and the trial was scheduled for March 30th.
The legal team and supporters after trial for Abu-Jamal v. Kane – photo by Joseph Piette
The trial on March 30th, approximately 5 months after Corbett signed this ill-fated bill into law, was “on the merits,” meaning that the judge will be making a final ruling on the constitutionality of the Act. Following the hearing, attorneys for the plaintiffs felt good about their chances for success. “Many court challenges on First Amendment grounds hinge on one basis for finding a law unconstitutional,” said ALC Legal Director Bret Grote. “However, the Silencing Act is plainly a violation of the First Amendment for several reasons, and we think we presented those reasons to the judge well.” We are hopeful that Chief Judge Conner’s ruling will be handed down in the next couple of months.
Almost immediately after conclusion of the trial, the positive atmosphere amongst the legal team and supporters was interrupted by the news that Mumia Abu-Jamal had lost consciousness and had been moved from SCI Mahanoy for emergency care at the nearby Schuylkill Medical Center. His blood sugar count was at 779: he was in diabetic shock. His sodium level was 160. Since January, Mumia has been suffering from a severe case of eczema that was reportedly treated with antibiotics and steroids, which caused an allergic reaction. His life threatening medical crisis continues and has now been labeled late-onset diabetes, which should have been identified and treated far earlier than it was.
Press conference on March 31st, with Mumia’s family and supporters – photo by David McKeown
Mumia’s supporters and family members, together with ALC attorneys, rushed to the hospital to intervene on his behalf, but were prevented from speaking with him and were denied any information about his condition for more than 24hrs. The prison did not notify Mumia’s attorneys or family members of his health emergency, and if not for the fact that supporters were at the prison that morning to visit with him, a visit that was denied because he’d been sent to the hospital, it would likely have been days before news of his condition reached his loved ones. The situation bears echos of the recent passing of political prisoner Phil Africa of the MOVE organization, whose condition was not shared with his relatives until the day before his death, the cause of which remains unknown.
Prison Radio is raising funds to pay for outside doctors to meet and consult with Mumia about his illness and treatment, in order to ensure that his life is not threatened again by the extreme lack of competence among medical staff within the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (PADOC). We encourage everyone to please donate to the Indiegogo campaign, and to share it far and wide:
Mumia’s supporters are also organizing to push the PADOC to allow outside medical care for Mumia, and are circulating a petition. Their most recent update makes clear that he is suffering and still at risk:
His blood sugar registered in the mid 200s today and continues to fluctuate, and although Mumia is still very weak, he was better than on Friday. He told us that the doctors gave him a double shot of insulin right before he came out for the visit, likely in an effort to make him appear temporarily more energetic than he is. This concerns us because insulin overdose is a possibility in these instances. Again Mumia has not yet been seen by a diabetes specialist, although the general practitioner told him today that perhaps he needs to see a nutritionist. This is a sign that our muckraking is working, since the news has gotten around that he was given spaghetti for lunch when his blood sugar registered at 336.
However, despite this modest progress Mumia struggled to get out of his wheelchair so that we could take a photo of him. He remained in the wheelchair for the rest of the visit.
This afternoon, Chief Judge for the federal court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Christopher Conner, ruled that Plaintiffs in the cases Abu-Jamal v. Kane and Prison Legal News v. Kane had standing against Attorney General Kane to seek a ruling on the constitutionality of the Silencing Act, a censorship law targeted at Mumia Abu-Jamal and other currently and formerly incarcerated people.
Defendant Seth Williams was dismissed from the case based on his explicit disavowal of enforcing the act until a court of competent jurisdiction rules on the constitutionality of the statute. His dismissal does not hinder Plaintiffs ability to obtain the relief of invalidating this law, as a favorable ruling on the First Amendment issue against Defendant Kane will achieve the same result. Williams’ disavowal of enforcement is a far cry from his political grandstanding in support of this bill’s passage in the fall.
The judge has ordered Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction to be merged with a trial on the merits, meaning that if we win we will be granted a permanent injunction against the statute, and the statue will be invalidated.
“Silencing prisoners is one more way of dehumanizing them,” said Amistad Law Project Policy Director Nikki Grant. “We need the voices of the marginalized to shed light on injustice.”
The trial is set for March 30 in Harrisburg, PA approximately 5 months since former Governor Corbett signed this ill-fated bill into law on October 21st 2015.
The Abolitionist Law Center, Amistad Law Project, and the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center at Northwestern University School of Law filed the lawsuit on Nov. 10th to stop enforcement of the law. The law firms represent Mumia Abu-Jamal, Prison Radio, Educators for Mumia Abu-Jamal, Kerry “Shakaboona” Marshall, Robert L. Holbrook, Donnell Palmer, Anthony Chance, and Human Rights Coalition.
The Silencing Act, also known as 18 P.S. § 11.1304, allows the Attorney General, county District Attorneys, and victims of personal injury crimes to bring a lawsuit in civil court against the person convicted of the personal injury crime to enjoin conduct that “perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim”. The actions that could prompt a lawsuit include “conduct which causes a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish.”
“This law is unconstitutional,” said David Shapiro of MacArthur Justice Center. “The facts are on our side and the law is on our side. The Silencing Act targets a huge amount of constitutionally protected speech based on who is speaking.”
After a prerecorded commencement speech by journalist and prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal was played for graduates at Goddard College in Vermont, the Pennsylvania legislature passed and outgoing Governor Corbett signed into law the Silencing Act on October 21st, 16 days after the commencement speech.
Abu-Jamal has spent 33 years in prison, 29 of which were in solitary confinement on death row after being convicted at a 1982 trial that Amnesty International said “failed to meet minimum international standards safeguarding the fairness of legal proceedings.”
Robert L. Holbrook, who is serving a death by incarceration, life without parole, sentence he received as a child, had this to say about the law: “there are people in prison who will stop writing, stop publishing, stop speaking out because of this law.”
Bret Grote bretgrote@abolitionistlawcenter.org 412-654-9070
David Shapiro david.shapiro@law.northwestern.edu 312-503-0711
Amistad Law Project is a West Philadelphia-based public interest law center. Our mission is to fight for the human rights of all people by providing legal services to people incarcerated in Pennsylvania’s prisons. www.amistadlaw.org | @amistadlaw | 267-225-5884
The Abolitionist Law Center is a public interest law firm inspired by the struggle of political and politicized prisoners, and organized for the purpose of abolishing class and race based mass incarceration in the United States. @AbolitionistLC | 412-654-9070
Prison Radio has recorded Mumia and other political prisoners for over 25 years, and we are pulling out all the stops to keep these voices on the air. 415-706-5222 Please donate today to amplify prisoners’ voices far and wide beyond the bars: Support Prison Radio: prisonradio.org/donate Defeat SB 508: bit.ly/defendfreespeech
January 8, 2015 – A motion for a preliminary injunction was filed today in the ongoing lawsuit, Abu-Jamal v. Kane, challenging a Pennsylvania censorship law intended to silence Mumia Abu-Jamal and others convicted of personal injury crimes.
The Abolitionist Law Center, Amistad Law Project, and the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center at Northwestern University School of Law filed the preliminary injunction motion today to stop enforcement of the law. The law firms represent Mumia Abu-Jamal, Prison Radio, Educators for Mumia Abu-Jamal, Kerry “Shakaboona” Marshall, Robert L. Holbrook, Donnell Palmer, Anthony Chance, and Human Rights Coalition in the lawsuit filed November 10, 2014 against Attorney General Kathleen Kane and Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams. The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania (ACLU) filed a similar lawsuit and preliminary injunction today.
The Silencing Act, also known as 18 P.S. § 11.1304, allows the Attorney General, county District Attorneys, and victims of personal injury crimes to bring a lawsuit in civil court against the person convicted of the personal injury crime to enjoin conduct that “perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim”. The actions that could prompt a lawsuit include “conduct which causes a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish.”
“This law is unconstitutional,” said David Shapiro of MacArthur Justice Center. “The facts are on our side and the law is on our side. The ‘Silencing Act’ targets a huge amount of constitutionally protected speech based on who is speaking.”
After a prerecorded commencement speech by journalist and prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal was played for graduates at Goddard College in Vermont, the Pennsylvania legislature passed and outgoing Governor Corbett signed into law the “Silencing Act” on October 21st, 16 days after the commencement speech.
Abu-Jamal has spent 33 years in prison, 29 of which were in solitary confinement on death row after being convicted at a 1982 trial that Amnesty International said “failed to meet minimum international standards safeguarding the fairness of legal proceedings.”
Robert L. Holbrook, who is serving a death by incarceration (life without parole) sentence he received as a child, had this to say about the law: “there are people in prison who will stop writing, stop publishing, stop speaking out because of this law.”
“Silencing prisoners is one more way of dehumanizing them,” said Amistad Law Project Policy Director Nikki Grant. “We need the voices of the marginalized to shed light on injustice.”
Mumia to receive treatment with direct-acting antiviral medications within 21-days
