MIM Legal Notes

Prisoner testimony to Amerikan censorship and retaliation

by an Illinois prisoner

30 May 2000

I suppose that it would be best to provide you with a bit of 
background information so you will best be able to understand how 
I have been attacking the Department's violation of inmate's first 
amendment rights, from which you will be able to draw your own 
conclusions as to why I have been subjected to the pattern of 
treatment I am going to describe.

I have been incarcerated since 1967, and I arrived in the 
Department of Corrections in 1969. It was quickly apparent that 
the Department was attempting to keep us from being exposed to 
ideas which would open our eyes to the injustices which the system 
was imposing upon us. This was most apparent through the extremely 
limited access we had to any form of perceived "revolutionary" or 
"radical" literature.

The prison library was stocked with precious little which could be 
used to build a movement within the prison population. While it 
did contain books by Engles and Marx, all requests for books by 
Fanon and Malcolm X were rebuffed. Additionally, the only method 
by which a prisoner could obtain books was by personally ordering 
them directly through the prison's business office. We were 
absolutely prohibited from receiving any sort of publication from 
friends or family. As there were only a handful of paying prison 
jobs at that time, this essentially meant that we were denied the 
opportunity to increase our intellectual and political awareness.

In 1971 we decided to challenge these restrictive policies as 
being in violation of our first amendment rights, and in 1976 the 
federal court in Chicago entered an order which struck down the 
ban on the receipt of publications through the mail. We could now 
receive packages of books and magazines from our families, and we 
could additionally solicit their donation from bookstores and 
concerned organizations. At this point, the suit lay dormant until 
1987.

Illinois underwent a massive prison building program in the 1980's 
in response to a huge influx of inmates, which was due to the 
draconian sentencing law incorporated by then Governor James 
Thompson. In addition, previously single-celled institutions were 
required to double-bunk to handle the massive number of inmates 
entering the prison system. This rapid increase in population 
began to severely strain the basic services these facilities 
provide, including mail delivery. In an attempt to limit some of 
the commercial publications coming into the prisons, Director 
Howard Peters issued a total ban on the receipt of catalogues in 
1987 in spite of the fact that we were allowed to purchase records 
and tapes through the mail.

After exhausting my administrative remedies in an attempt to 
overturn this ban, I eventually brought another complaint before 
the federal court. In response, the Department of Corrections 
transferred me from the southern end of Illinois to a prison quite 
close to Chicago; they would come to regret that move.

I had been handling my litigation pro se, as I could not secure 
legal representation in Southern Illinois; however, now I was able 
to get a noted first amendment attorney to take over the 
prosecution of my case, and we began to make progress with it. In 
1992 we received a ruling which overturned the band on receipt of 
catalogues, and also set minimum levels of publications we could 
possess in our cells. Once again, the suit lay dormant until the 
Department of Corrections failed to adhere to the court's order 
when they issued a ban on posters in 1997.

While my attorney was challenging this ban, the Department filed a 
motion in the federal court, in which they attempted to have the 
court's jurisdiction over our case dismissed, in accordance with 
recently passes Federal Litigation Reform Act. The same day that 
the Department filed notice of their attempt to have our case 
dismissed, I was once again transferred, this time for alleged 
insolence. This time I was sent to a prison in Central Illinois.

Upon my arrival at the Illinois River Corr. Center, I discovered 
that they had a total ban on the receipt and possession of hard-
bound books. Additionally, they refused to issue me law books 
which were purchased by friends and family. This was in direct 
violation of the existing court order.

My attorney challenged the Department's assertion that it was no 
longer violating inmate's first amendment rights, which would have 
required the court to dismiss our case if the court had accepted 
their contention, and referred the case to a magistrate for an 
evidentiary hearing. In the meantime, we were eventually able to 
overturn the ban on hard-bound books, and Illinois River was 
ordered to comply with the court's previous order relative to our 
receipt of periodicals through the mail.

Since 1999 we have been auditing several of the prisons within the 
state, in an attempt to show that the Department is continuing to 
violate inmate's first amendment rights; I am sure that it will 
come as no surprise that we have found much evidence to back up 
our allegations.

For example, at the super-maximum security prison in Tamms, we 
learned that there existed a total ban on the receipt of reading 
material from friends and family members, and a near-total ban on 
the possession of hard-bound books. We also learned that the 
prison's "library" does not subscribe to a single newspaper or 
magazine. As these men exist in a condition of near total 
isolation, extended exposure to such deprivation surely would seem 
to rise to a level of a constitutional violation against cruel and 
unusual punishment.

In January we succeeded in getting these overly-restrictive rules 
overturned, which provided at least a little relief for those 
being psychologically tortured by the isolation which confronts 
those confined indefinitely in Tamms.

During the course of discovery we had the opportunity to take 
depositions from a variety of high-ranking officials within the 
Department, which provided much supportive information relative to 
our issues. For example, Illinois River has a written policy in 
its inmates' handbook which stated that inmates could purchase 
cassette tapes from any wholesale or retail establishment; 
however, the personal property officer had an unofficial policy of 
permitting us to order from two vendors. Regarding this issue, the 
Associate Director, George DeTella), under oath stated that not 
only could inmates purchase cassettes from any store, but 
additionally, that their family and friends could also place such 
orders, and have the store mail the items directly to us. When 
confronted with this testimony, Illinois River revised its policy; 
however, not without repercussions.

On the evening of February 9, 2000 I was taken from my room and 
placed in segregation, without notification of what rule I had 
violated. The following morning, I was transferred to the Pontiac 
Corr. Center, a maximum security institution, and held 
incommunicado. After several days, the attorney general notified 
my attorney of my transfer, and he arranged for me to phone him. 
When I informed him of the deplorable conditions I was being held 
under, he immediately registered a complaint with the attorney 
general, and the following day I was issued some of my personal 
property and moved to a clean cell. In addition, he went into 
federal court to protest their treatment of me, as I had never 
been issued a disciplinary report.

When the Department told the judge that I was "under 
investigation," and that it would probably take 2-3 months to 
complete, my attorney displayed the Illinois Administrative Code 
to the judge. It requires the Department to complete 
investigations within 30 days unless a "state of emergency" had 
been declared. When the Department was forced to admit that no 
such emergency had been declared, the judge told them to complete 
their investigation within 30 days. On the 30th day, they went 
into court and informed the court that the unnamed inmate who had 
supposedly made an allegation against me had failed a polygraph 
test, and that I was going to be released from the segregation 
unit. Later that day I was placed in a station wagon and 
transferred to the Danville Corr. Center, a medium security 
prison.

I have subsequently filed a lawsuit in the Court of Claims for the 
treatment I was subjected to while confined in Pontiac which was 
in violation of state statutes. For example, state law gives me 
the right to recreate outside of my cell for one hour per day; 
however, Pontiac only gives and inmate one hour per week for an 
inmate's first 90 days in segregation. If this claim is upheld, 
the decision will have a profound effect on the manner in which 
segregation inmates are treated. Every inmate who has been denied 
this right to recreation can file a similar claim, and seek 
financial compensation; more importantly, the Department will have 
to provide inmates with at least one hour of recreation outside of 
the cell each day. I also set forth additional violations of state 
statutes relating to segregation treatment. If you would like to 
see a copy of my complaint, I can forward it to you.

The state took my deposition over the course of three days here in 
March, and my attorney is just completing the remainder of our 
depositions from inmates at the Tamms and Menard Corr. Centers. 
Our next hearing is scheduled for early June. I will keep you 
informed of any circumstances which need reporting.



Pro se victory against censorship in Illinois

by an Illinois prisoner

3 April 2000

The Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) has the authority 
and obligation to establish rules and regulations to provide 
prisoners with access to published materials including newspapers 
and magazines approved by the Director of the IDOC. (730 ILCS 5/3-
7-1)

The IDOC's regulations for prisoners' access to publications is 
set forth in title 20, Sections 525.200 through 525.230 of the 
Illinois Administrative Code (20 Ill. Admn. Code Sec 525.200 
through 525.230). A prisoner may subscribe to, solicit free copies 
of, or buy individual copies of approved newspapers, magazines, 
books and other publications for delivery to the facility of 
confinement. "A member of the [prisoner's] family or a friend may 
also order, solicit or bring approved publications to the 
facility." ITAL 20 Ill. Admn.Code Sec 525.210(c). END

The warden of the Pontiac Correctional Center implemented his own 
personal policy which prohibited friends and family members of 
prisoners from bringing in approved publications.

A complaint for mandamus was filed in the Circuit Court of 
Livingston County, Illinois, seeking an order compelling the 
warden to allow family members and friends to bring in approved 
publications for prisoners in accordance with established 
regulations.

The warden filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the decision to 
allow friends and family members to deliver approved publications 
to a prisoner is a discretionary act. The warden argued that the 
use of the word "may" in the last sentence in Sec 525.210(c) 
indicates a discretionary act. Thus, mandamus is inapplicable.

In response to the motion to dismiss, the prisoner argued that the 
use of the word "may" does in fact allow for discretion. However, 
the plain reading of Sec 525.210(c) clearly indicates that the use 
of the word "may" refers to what the prisoner's family and friends 
may do, not to what the IDOC employees may do.

The Circuit Court agreed with the prisoner and denied the warden's 
motion to dismiss. In its holding, the Court ruled that Sec 
525.210(c) indicates that discretion lies with the prisoner's 
friends and family members, not the warden. The Court further 
ruled that the IDOC must allow prisoners' friends and family to 
bring in approved publications.

The warden subsequently rescinded his policy and permitted friends 
and family members to deliver approved publications to prisoners. 
[See ITAL Markiewicz v. Gilmore END, No. 97-MR-22 (Order Filed 
July 1, 1998)]

(Note: This action was litigated pro se.)

ITAL MIM organizes the Serve the People Prisoners' Legal Clinic 
(PLC). This is a revolutionary program geared toward serving needs 
of the oppressed masses as we build opposition to imperialism. PLC 
activities vary widely (with room for expansion) and include 
fighting censorship, prisoners providing guides on grievance 
procedures and the publication of MIM Legal Notes. MIM leads this 
program with the knowledge that only armed revolution to seize 
state power and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat will 
liberate the oppressed. This is one aspect of how we fight 
winnable battles to create more maneuverability for political 
organizing within the current corrupt system.

MIM Legal Notes is researched and written by comrades behind the 
walls. We publish these articles because we believe that the legal 
research and information will be useful to other prisoners. But 
comrades should be aware that differences in laws between states, 
changes in laws and legal precedents over time, and different case 
circumstances all mean that even something that was successful for 
one person might not work for others. We print the best legal news 
and information available to us with the understanding that this 
program will only grow stronger with increased exposure and 
participation. We encourage prisoners and non-prisoners to 
contribute to this program with research and writing. END