Background

On February 27, 2004, Wayne Ricky Elson Rudder (Rudder or complainant) filed this complaint stating that he is an inmate at Solano State Prison and that MCI WorldCom Communications (MCI) is the sole provider of pay telephone service to inmates of the California Department of Corrections. Complainant alleges that MCI placed a "block" on his mother's telephone line in New York state for "billing issues." Because of the "block," complainant is unable to complete a telephone call to his mother.

Complainant alleges that MCI's actions violate the following provisions of state and federal law and the United States Constitution:

· First Amendment right to association

· Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process

· extortion statutes, by attempting to force customers to prepay for calls

· racketeering statutes

· Public Utilities Code Section 2106¹

The complainant also alleges that these violations have deliberately inflicted emotional distress on him and his family. Based on these alleged violations, complainant seeks damages of $650,000 and an injunction ordering MCI to cease all such violations.

On April 30, 2004, MCI filed its answer and stated that it has contracted with the State of California Department of General Services (DGS) to provide payphone services to state and local government agencies, and that it provides such services at the Solano State Prison on a collect call basis. MCI's contract incorporates by reference MCI's "Service Publication and Price Guide" (the Guide), which is publicly available. The Guide allows MCI to make changes effective 15 days after posting.

MCI explained that it can only bill collect calls under three circumstances: (1) where the called number is a MCI customer, (2) where MCI has a billing contract with the local exchange carrier for the called number, or (3) where the customer has established a direct billing arrangement with MCI. In September 2002, MCI modified the Guide² to require that customers who are not direct MCI customers or customers of a local exchange carrier with which MCI has a contract must establish a Maximum Security Collect account with MCI. Such an account requires a $50.00 deposit or a credit card number. MCI stated that after February 11, 2003, calls to numbers that did not have one of the three billing methods in place were not connected.

MCI stated that in 2002 it provided the Department of Corrections with copies of written notices for posting for inmates and distribution to visitors describing the new billing rules. The notice provided a toll free telephone number for inmates and family members to call for answers to questions.

After MCI implemented the direct billing requirement, when an inmate placed a call to an unbillable number (which would not be connected), MCI's automated calling system would place a telephone call to the called number. A recording would explain that an inmate had tried to call, and would give instructions on how to make billing arrangements. The automated system would place up to three such calls.

MCI's records show that complainant's mother is not a direct MCI customer, and that MCI does not have a billing contract with her local exchange carrier. The records also show that MCI's automated calling system placed calls to complainant's mother's telephone number on three occasions, and that the person answering the telephone terminated each call before completion. MCI also stated that on April 12, 2004, one of its representatives called complainant's mother and left a voice mail message but the call was not returned. MCI noted that its Maximum Security Call Center has no record of complainant's mother seeking assistance.

MCI moved to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds:

1. lack of jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for monetary damages, or violations of the U.S. Constitution;

2. lack of jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality of terms and conditions governing interstate telecommunications services; and,

3. failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.