The appeals coordinator is refusing to process it on the grounds that I didn't attempt to resolve it at the informal level with the concerned staff. He stated that per the warden I must first resolve this with the facility captain. Damn, I didn't know that the warden had the power to override the California Code of Regulations and dictate policy pell-mell!? According to CCR I must first resolve this with the mailroom.

Warden Anthony Hedgpeth
Salinas Valley State Prison
PO Box 1020
Soledad, CA 93960-1020

28 February 2009

Mr. Hedgpeth,

This letter is regarding a stack of recently returned mail that was sent by MIM Distributors to people being held at SVSP. As you are probably aware, the handling of MIM’s mail by the CDCR has been an ongoing concern. MIM’s mail has been consistently returned by SVSP mailroom staff, usually unopened, for well over a year now.

Following Prison Legal News v. CDCR your department was to create a centralized list of any banned publications. The first iteration of this list was released on October 21, 2008. However, the newsletter that was censored, Under Lock & Key, was not on the list. The list is to be updated May 1 of each year. So why is it that in February 2009, Under Lock & Key is still being returned with the reason “Not on approved mailing list at SVSP, SOLEDAD, CA”? Is there another list that MIM Distributors must be on in order to get mail to people held at SVSP, in addition to not being on the centralized list of disapproved publications?

Please clarify this matter so that we can know the current status of our ability to communicate with people being held in SVSP.


Sincerely,

Warden Anthony Hedgpeth
Salinas Valley State Prison
PO Box 1020
Soledad, CA 93960-1020

6 April 2009

Mr. Hedgpeth,

In your letter from March 20, 2009 you state that Scott Kernan had imposed a ban on MIM publications at CDCR. I am aware of the 2005 document proclaiming such a ban, but the Office of Legal Affairs appears to be giving you a different story than they are giving the U.S. District Court regarding the continued applicability of this ban.

According to the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications, dated October 21, 2008, that I cited in my previous letter, “The centralized list of disapproved publications supersedes any prior departmental or facility memoranda regarding banned publications. Facilities must use only the most updated version of the centralized list to identify publications subject to a general ban.” As I tried to explain in my previous letter, MIM Distributors does not appear on this list.

I also find it surprising that you are not aware of the October 21, 2008 memo, which also reads, “Wardens are to ensure that this memorandum and list are distributed appropriately. This includes ensuring that they are copied, distributed, and posted at locations accessible to inmates, parolees, and employees…” As a Warden it appears to be required that you not only be aware of this memo but that you make it available to all others within the facility you oversee.

The Deputy Attorney General representing Mr. Kernan has represented the above quoted memo as being the truth on the ground within CDCR facilities. If the CDCR Legal Affairs office is still upholding the ban as you claim then perhaps the miscommunication is at a higher level. I am cc’ing the Deputy Attorney General as well as the Legal Affairs office to request their responses to this matter.


Thank you for your time,

Warden Derral Adams
CSATF
PO Box 8800
Corcoran, CA 93212-8309

6 April 2009

Mr. Adams,

This letter is to request a review of the decision by staff member M. Seminario to censor mail sent by MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX.

According to the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications, dated October 21, 2008, “The centralized list of disapproved publications supersedes any prior departmental or facility memoranda regarding banned publications. Facilities must use only the most updated version of the centralized list to identify publications subject to a general ban.” MIM Distributors does not appear on this list.

I do not have a copy of the memo that was attached to the enclosed notification of disapproval, but I assume it is the letter from Scott Kernan from 2005, which has been superseded by the list cited above. Therefore, I am requesting that the Under Lock & Key and subsequent mail from MIM Distributors be delivered to Mr. XXXXXX and any other prisoners being held at CSATF. If you do not deliver these items to Mr. XXXXXX then I am requesting an explanation of your refusal.


Thank you for your time,

Warden Derral Adams
CSATF
PO Box 8800
Corcoran, CA 93212-8309

23 June 2009

Mr. Adams,

In April I wrote you to request that the mail room at CSATF abide by the current mail policies of the CDCR, particularly as ordered in the court settlement with Prison Legal News that was approved over 2 years ago. Following that settlement, the illegal ban on MIM Distributor’s mail in California was rescinded.

In response to my April letter, C. Pugliese, Mailroom Sergeant acknowledged that the ban was overturned and that mail from MIM Distributors must be reviewed according to the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Yet, the mail in question was neither deemed to violate the CCR, nor was it forwarded to its intended recipient (XXXXXX XXXXXX) to our knowledge.

In addition, we have continued to receive notifications from people held at CSATF that their mail is being censored “per memorandum from Division of Adult Institutions, ban of Maoist International Movement Publications.”

As of last month, CSATF is the only facility in California that is still treating the 2005 memo as current policy that we have documented. Can you please advise me as to why the mailroom staff are not following the rules that the mailroom sergeant acknowledges that it should be following?


Thank you for your time,

A. Describe Problem: On 2-8-09 I received a "Notification of Disapproval" of a publication from the anti-imperialist group MIM. This is a violation of my 1st Amendment right to know this political information and the 1st Amendment rights of MIM to voice their political views. The CDC 1819 claimed there was a memo attached supporting the institutions case. It's not there! CCR Title 15 3006(c)-(1) is no excuse to violate our rights. All you did is make me more interested in their work.

B. Action Requested: The memo mentioned to be attached to my complaint. Don't worry about the knowledge that I have. I get whether you censor it or not. Avoid extensive litigation and give me my publication titled "Under Lock & Key" that has been censored!

Warden Francisco Jacquez
Pelican Bay State Prison
PO Box 7000
Crescent City, CA 95531-7000

6 April 2009

Mr. Jacquez,

This letter is to request a review of the decision by staff member K. Brandon to censor mail sent by MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXXXX (XXXXXX).

Brandon incorrectly cites a memo from 2006 to justify rejecting any mail coming from MIM Distributors. According to the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications, dated October 21, 2008, “The centralized list of disapproved publications supersedes any prior departmental or facility memoranda regarding banned publications. Facilities must use only the most updated version of the centralized list to identify publications subject to a general ban.” MIM Distributors does not appear on this list.

I am requesting that the mail in question be released by ISU and given to Mr. XXXXXXX and that the October 18, 2008 memo be distributed to staff as required by said memo and the lawsuit that preceded it. If you do not deliver these items to Mr. XXXXXXX then I am requesting an explanation of your refusal that complies with current rules and laws.


Thank you for your time,

Warden Fernando Gonzalez
California Correctional Institution
PO Box 1031
Tehachapi, CA 93581

22 June 2009

Mr. Gonzalez,

This letter is to request a review of the decision by a staff member at California Correctional Institution to censor mail sent by MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX.

According to the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications, dated October 21, 2008, “The centralized list of disapproved publications supersedes any prior departmental or facility memoranda regarding banned publications. Facilities must use only the most updated version of the centralized list to identify publications subject to a general ban.” MIM Distributors does not appear on this list.

When Mr. XXXXXX appealed the decision to censor MIM mail, the decision was denied citing a memo from Scott Kernan from 2006, which has been superseded by the list cited above. Therefore, I am requesting that the Under Lock & Key newsletter and subsequent mail from MIM Distributors be delivered to Mr. XXXXXX and any other prisoners being held at CCI. If you do not deliver these items to Mr. XXXXXX then I am requesting an explanation of your refusal.


Thank you for your time,

K. Brandon, Correctional Captain
Pelican Bay State Prison
PO Box 7000
Crescent City, CA 95531-7000

29 May 2009

Dear K. Brandon,

In late April you sent a memo signed by you on 4/21/2009 stating that 3 letters from MIM Distributors had been censored due to the statewide ban. Subsequently, a 5/4/2009 letter from you acknowledges that said ban was overturned 6 months prior. Finally, we received a new “Stopped Mail Notification”, presumably for the same 3 pieces of mail stating that they were “contraband” and a “threat to penalogical interests.” The explanation reads “CONTENT INCITES REVOLUTIONARY IDEOLOGIES.”

The three pieces of mail sent to the prisoner during the period in question were an introductory letter to MIM(Prisons) work with prisoners, issue 7 of the newsletter Under Lock & Key and a copy of the letter sent to the warden on 4/6/2009 by our office explaining that you were operating on an outdated department memo. So you are saying that a letter to the warden about CDCR policies is a threat to penalogical interests? The main point made in issue 7 of Under Lock & Key is that it is against the interests of prisoners to encourage violent confrontations with others when facing frustrations (the intro letter echoes this belief). ULK 7 also argues that the prevention of legal rights and avenues for redress of complaints to prisoners is a strategy to promote violence in prisons. Are these expressed ideas in ULK 7 a threat to the interests of the CDCR as you see them?

Finally, your justification for the censorship given on the notification dated on 4/15/2009, but mailed 5/13/2009 after acknowledging MIM Distributors is not banned by CDCR, assumes a role for the IGI that is threatening to Constitutional rights. Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 416 n.14 is clear that political ideology cannot be used to verify a written document as a “threat to penalogical interests.”

If you cannot cite a specific action in each of the three pieces of mail in question that poses a threat then your actions are not based in U.S. law.

If, on the other hand, you see the promotion of non-violent behavior in prisons and legal action on behalf of prisoners’ rights as a threat to penalogical interests, then we will take our concerns elsewhere. Either way, we will appreciate your response so that we can address our concerns through the appropriate avenues.

Thank you for your time,

Warden Derral Adams
CSATF
PO Box 8800
Corcoran, CA 93212-8309

23 June 2009

Mr. Adams,

In April I wrote you to request that the mail room at CSATF abide by the current mail policies of the CDCR, particularly as ordered in the court settlement with Prison Legal News that was approved over 2 years ago. Following that settlement, the illegal ban on MIM Distributor’s mail in California was rescinded.

In response to my April letter, C. Pugliese, Mailroom Sergeant acknowledged that the ban was overturned and that mail from MIM Distributors must be reviewed according to the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Yet, the mail in question was neither deemed to violate the CCR, nor was it forwarded to its intended recipient to our knowledge.

In addition, we have continued to receive notifications from people held at CSATF that their mail is being censored “per memorandum from Division of Adult Institutions, ban of Maoist International Movement Publications.”

As of last month, CSATF is the only facility in California that is still treating the 2005 memo as current policy that we have documented. Can you please advise me as to why the mailroom staff are not following the rules that the mailroom sergeant acknowledges that it should be following?


Thank you for your time,

Warden Mike McDonald
High Desert State Prison
P.O. Box 750
Susanville, CA 96127-0750

24 July 2009

Mr. McDonald,

This letter is to request an explanation of the handling of mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners being held at High Desert State Prison.

According to the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications, dated October 21, 2008, “The centralized list of disapproved publications supersedes any prior departmental or facility memoranda regarding banned publications. Facilities must use only the most updated version of the centralized list to identify publications subject to a general ban.” MIM Distributors does not appear on this list.

In late November 2008, a month after this list was released, the mailroom at High Desert returned a couple of dozen unopened pieces of mail containing issue # 5 of Under Lock & Key, mailed by MIM Distributors. Since then, MIM Distributors has sent hundreds of pieces of mail to prisoners at High desert and only 3 have been confirmed received. A number of prisoners have confirmed that Under Lock & Key has not been delivered to them in that time and they have not been notified of any censorship. MIM Distributors has not received notification of this censorship either.

It is a violation of rules set forth in the CCR as well as federal case law to not notify senders/receivers when you censor their mail. It is also a violation of the CCR and case law to censor mail if it does not threaten the prison in some way. Thirdly, I am questioning the legality of the mailrooms apparent destruction of this mail without notification to either the sender or receiver.

In light of these incidents I am requesting an explanation of what is being done with mail sent by MIM Distributors to prisoners at High Desert, and what the justification is for such actions.



Thank you for your time,

Warden Anthony Hedgpeth
Salinas Valley State Prison
PO Box 1020
Soledad, CA 93960-1020

29 June 2009

Mr. Hedgpeth,

I appreciated your response from April 28, 2009 and was pleased that you acknowledged that publications from MIM Distributors were not banned in California prisons, after months of mail be returned to sender from your facility. We have yet to receive confirmation as to whether your statements in that letter prove to be true in practice.

However, we have received one letter returned with the usual stamp used by SVSP staff saying that MIM Distributors is not on the addressee’s “approved mailing list.” Since you acknowledge that none of the publications distributed by MIM Distributors are on the banned publication list, what “list” is being referred to here. Furthermore, the mail in question was not a publication, but material addressed to a particular person at SVSP. This person, Mr XXXXXX XXXXXX, seems to have had particular restrictions applied to his mail. Is it now policy for the CDCR to return unopened mail, rather than applying the California Codes to judge whether such mail is a threat to security?

Sir, this problem has been ongoing for many months, with no signs that you are following the department’s rules, nor legal precedent. I am requesting that immediate action be taken to remedy this problem.

Thank you again for your time in this important matter,

Warden Francisco Jacquez
Pelican Bay State Prison
PO Box 7000
Crescent City, CA 95531-7000

22 August 2009

Mr. Jacquez,

Over the last year I have written a number of letters to yourself and Mr K. Brandon, Correctional Captain regarding the handling of mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners being held at Pelican Bay SP. I currently have a stack of mail on my desk, of various contents, all unopened and returned from PBSP stating “Contents unacceptable at Pelican Bay.” I will not rewrite the points I have already made in my previous letters. However, I am writing to document the situation and once again request that you get your staff to respect the legal rights of MIM Distributors to communicate with prisoners at PBSP.

I welcome any correspondence you may have if you are interested in addressing this issue.


Sincerely,

Warden Francisco Jacquez
Pelican Bay State Prison
PO Box 7000
Crescent City, CA 95531-7000

22 August 2009

Mr. Jacquez,

Over the last year I have written a number of letters to yourself and Mr K. Brandon, Correctional Captain regarding the handling of mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners being held at Pelican Bay SP. I currently have a stack of mail on my desk, of various contents, all unopened and returned from PBSP stating “Contents unacceptable at Pelican Bay.” I will not rewrite the points I have already made in my previous letters. However, I am writing to document the situation and once again request that you get your staff to respect the legal rights of MIM Distributors to communicate with prisoners at PBSP.

I welcome any correspondence you may have if you are interested in addressing this issue.


Sincerely,

MAILROOM SUPERVISOR
MDC LOS ANGELES
METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER
535 N ALAMEDA STREET
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

22 August 2009

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing to request an explanation for why mail sent by MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX is being returned to sender. This has been ongoing for many months now with no explanation.


Sincerely,

Acting Captain Mr. Chenshaw, Mailroom
Avenal State Prison
PO Box 9
Avenal, CA 93204-0009
September 24, 2009
Mr. Chenshaw,

This letter is being sent in regards to the denial of MIM Distributors' publication Under Lock & Key issue 9 (July 2009) from prisoners Mr. XXX and Mr. XXX. Interestingly enough, Mr. XXX has been appealing this censorship, and he was referred to a defunct CDCR memorandum from December 13, 2006.

As you may know, following Prison Legal News v. CDCR, this previously mentioned memorandum was overturned and your department was to create a centralized list of any banned publications. The first iteration of this list was released on October 21, 2008. The newsletter that was censored, Under Lock & Key, was not on the list. The list is to be updated May 1 of each year, and we have not seen or heard of any updated lists since the original.

Please clarify this matter so that we can know the current status of our ability to communicate with people being held in Avenal State Prison.

Robert Presley Detention Center
Captain Dave Nordstrom
4000 Orange Street
Riverside, CA 92501

October 13, 2009

Captain Nordstrom:

This letter is in reference to the censorship of all mail from MIM Distributors to prisoner XXXX, who is held at your facility. This complete censorship started in August 2009 and continues into the present. The mail in question is an informational letter about the organization MIM(Prisons), a pamphlet titled What is MIM?, a study course for the pamphlet What is MIM?, and issue 10 of MIM(Prisons)' newsletter titled Under Lock & Key.

The reason given for most of these returns has been simply "contents not allowed." What about the contents is not allowed? Most recently a piece of mail was returned with "no staples" written on the envelope. As you may know, a limit on a prisoner's constitutional right to freedom of association must be related to a valid threat. I doubt that RPDC's ban on staples would satisfy the U.S. court's requirements as listed below:

"Prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385

"Unsupported security claims couldn't justify infringement on First Amendment rights." Crofton v. Roe (9th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d 957

We request from you: (1) a list of mail rules for Robert Presley Detention Center, (2) an independent review of these errors made by your mailroom staff, and (3) for the illegitimate ban on correspondence between MIM(Prisons) and Mr. XXXX to cease. We appreciate your consideration and cooperation.

Sincerely,

MIM(Prisons)

Aref Fakhoury, Warden
California Institution for Men
P.O. Box 128
Chino, CA 91708

21 February 2010

Dear Warden Fakhoury,

This letter is regarding the censorship of a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key issue 12 (Jan/Feb 2010) from MIM Distributors to XXX at California Institution for Men. The newsletter was returned to MIM Distributors with a stamp that said "against regulations."

This letter is to appeal that decision made by mailroom staff. We do not think that there are valid grounds on which to make the claim that Under Lock & Key issue 12 is "against regulations." The newsletter was received by many prisoners across the state of California, and the country. Apparently it was not "against regulations" at those hundreds of other facilities.

We request (1) an independent review the decision made by California Institution for Men mailroom staff to mark this newsletter as "against regulations." We also ask for (2) a thorough explanation as to why this newsletter was censored, with specific citations. Lastly, we ask that (3) Under Lock & Key issue 12 be deliverable to XXX, and any other prisoner at CIM who wishes to correspond with MIM Distributors.

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Warden Aref Fakhoury
California Institution for Men
P.O. Box 128
Chino, CA 91710

2 April 2010

Dear Warden Fakhoury,

Thank you for your timely response to my inquiry regarding the censorship of mail from MIM Distributors to QQQ at CIM. In your response you referred to an August 25, 2007 ban on all MIM mail.

Following Prison Legal News v. CDCR your department was to create a centralized list of any banned publications. The first iteration of this list was released on October 21, 2008. However, the newsletter that was censored, Under Lock & Key, was not on the list. The list is to be updated May 1 of each year. So why is it that in January 2010, Under Lock & Key is still being banned based on the outdated memo you referred to?

Please clarify this matter so that we can know the current status of our ability to communicate with QQQ and other who wish to communicate with MIM Distributors held at CIM.

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Brian Haws, Warden
44750 60th Street West
Lacaster, CA 93536-7620

24 February 2010

Dear Warden Haws,

This letter is regarding the censorship of a letter from MIM Distributors, San Francisco, California to Mr. XXX, who is a prisoner at California State Prison - Los Angeles County. Ironically, the content of the letter in question was a step-by-step guide to fighting censorship of mail, beginning with Step 1: File Grievances.

The letter was returned to MIM Distributors with "Unauthorized/Unacceptable Item" stamped on the envelope, but no further explanation as to why or what was unauthorized/unacceptable about the item. It is completely ridiculous and illegal that a letter that encourages prisoners to use legal means of fighting censorship should be disallowed as an "unauthorized/unacceptable item."

Therefore, this letter is to appeal that decision made by mailroom staff. We do not think that there are valid grounds on which to block the receipt of a letter that helps prisoners fight censorship by those held at CSP-LA County.

We request (1) an independent review the decision made by CSP-LA County mailroom staff to mark this letter as "unauthorized/unacceptable." We also ask for (2) a thorough explanation as to why this item was censored, with specific citations. Lastly, we ask that (3) mail be deliverable from MIM Distributors to all prisoners who choose to communicate with them AT CSP-LA County.

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Warden Anthony Hedgpeth
Salinas Valley State Prison
PO Box 1020
Soledad, CA 93960-1020

8 March 2010

Warden Hedgpeth,

On April 28, 2009 and July 6, 2009 you acknowledged that publications from MIM Distributors were not banned in California prisons, after months of mail be returned to sender from your facility. However, we continue to receive our mail returned to us stamped "Unauthorized/Unacceptable Item" or "Not on approved mailing list at SVSP." This week alone we received 10 letters returned as described above.

This problem has been ongoing consistently since 2007, with no signs that your mailroom staff is following the department’s rules, nor legal precedent. You have assured us on more than one occasion that your staff has been retrained to not ban mail from MIM Distributors, but this is obviously not the reality.

I am requesting that immediate action be taken to remedy this problem.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties

Warden Derral Adams
CSATF
PO Box 8800
Corcoran, CA 93212-8309

2 April 2010

Dear Warden Adams,

On 24 February 2010 mailroom staff V. Oyerviolez wrongly censored a magazine from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXX held at CSATF. This letter is to appeal that decision, and to allow the magazine to be delivered to Mr. XXXXXX.

The reason that V. Oyerviolez gave for this censorship this censorship was CCR Title 15, Section 3006 (c) (11) "Catalogs, advertisements, brochures and materials whose primary purpose is to sell product(s)" shall be disapproved for delivery. The item in question is actually a magazine, not a catalog, titled MIM Theory 14: United Front. Admittedly, the inside of the back cover of the magazine has advertisements for other issues of MIM Theory. However, it is obvious that V. Oyerviolez did not do a thorough or accurate investigation of the true nature of this magazine, because MIM Theory 14: United Front is NOT a catalog, but instead 170 pages of pure plain text. Even the front cover identifies the publication as a "theoretical journal" which implies wordiness, not sales.

Upon review, this magazine will be determined to not be a catalog, and should be permitted for timely delivery to Mr. XXX. It is ridiculous and illegal that the impotency of your mailroom staff at CSATF should lead to such hassle and delay. We ask that you reprimand V. Overviolez for their intentional disregard of their responsibility to their job, and retrain your staff on how to tell the difference between a document that is made up of articles and a document that is made up of advertisements.

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Carl Ross, Mailroom Supervisor
Folsom State Prison
P.O. Box 910
Folsom, CA 95763

4 April 2010

Dear Supervisor Ross,

On 19 March 2010 you sent a letter to MIM Distributors saying that "MIM Publications will not be delivered to inmate XXX housed at Folsom State Prison." This implies that all mail to Mr. XXX will be censored in a complete ban of MIM.

According to Prison Legal News v. CDCR, each publication and letter must be reviewed on an individual basis, and it is illegal to ban a distributor who is not on the centralized list that is put out by CDCR annually. In 2008, MIM was not on the banned list, and we have reason to believe we are not on the 2009 list either, because no one has referred us to it. So we request that you stop this illegal ban on all publications coming from MIM Distributors, and start determining the allowance of publications on an individual basis.

Additionally, allow me to remind you that if you should determine a publication to be inadmissible at Folsom State Prison, you are legally obligated to provide to the sender and the intended recipient the name or identification of the publication, and the specific reason why it is being censored. This reason must be legitimately related to penological interested as laid out in Turner v. Safely. Also, for your reference:

"Prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385

"Unsupported security claims couldn't justify infringement on First Amendment rights." Crofton v. Roe (9th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d 957

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Tim Virga, Warden
P.O. Box 290002
Represa, CA 95671-002

1 June 2010

Dear Warden Virga,

A publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 13 (March/April 2010) was sent to several prisoners held at your facility. It was sent from MIM Distributors in San Francisco, CA by standard mail on 30 March 2010. This publication was returned to MIM Distributors with no explanation and denied delivery to the following prisoners:

XXX

This letter is to inquire about why this publication was censored from CSP-Sac. The envelopes were stamped with "Return to Sender" and a list of options for the mailroom staff to check to explain the denial. However, none of the options were checked. I have included a copy of an envelope so you can see what I am describing.

As you know, there must be a legitimate penological interest in the censorship of incoming mail. In addition to the ambiguous stamp on the envelopes, they were all returned unopened. How could your mailroom staff determine that the publication Under Lock & Key issue 13 should be censored at CSP-Sac if they did not view it?

We are requesting (1) a detailed explanation of why this publication was denied delivery to the above mentioned prisoners, (2) an investigation into the validity of the claim that it should be denied, so that it may be overturned, (3) prompt delivery of the publication Under Lock & Key issue 13, and (4) an end to the interference to the communication between MIM Distributors and prisoners held at CSP-Sacramento. We look forward to your timely response concerning the overturn of this incorrect denial.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Tim Virga, Warden
P.O. Box 290002
Represa, CA 95671-002

28 June 2010

Dear Warden Virga,

This letter is much the same as the one sent to your office on 1 June 2010 regarding the censorship of a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 13 (March/April 2010) was sent from MIM Distributors to several prisoners held at your facility. In our last letter we asked for an explanation as to why Under Lock & Key issue 13 was censored, and to inform you that your mailroom staff are censoring publications without viewing their contents.

Again, MIM Distributors sent in mail to several prisoners held at your facility. And again, they were returned to MIM Distributors in exactly the same manner as Under Lock & Key issue 13. The envelopes were stamped with "Return to Sender" and a list of options for the mailroom staff to check to explain the denial. However, none of the options were checked. Please refer to the envelope that I included in my last letter to you for a visual representation of what I am describing.

The contents of the letter most recently returned by CSP-Sac mailroom staff was copies of the 1 June letter I sent to you (with the names and CDCR #s of the prisoners removed) and a copy of our guide to fighting censorship, which describes that prisoners should file appeals and the necessary steps to filing a court case, if necessary.

As you know, there must be a legitimate penological interest in the censorship of incoming mail. In addition to the ambiguous stamp on the envelopes, they were all returned unopened. How could your mailroom staff determine that the publication Under Lock & Key issue 13 should be censored at CSP-Sac if they did not view it?

It is clear that your mailroom staff is enacting a blind ban of mail from MIM Distributors. According to Prison Legal News v. CDCR, each publication and letter must be reviewed on an individual basis, and it is illegal to ban a distributor who is not on the centralized list that is put out by CDCR annually. In 2008, MIM was not on the banned list, and we have reason to believe we are not on the 2010 list either, because no one has referred us to it. So we request that you stop this illegal ban on all publications coming from MIM Distributors, and start determining the allowance of publications on an individual basis.

Additionally, allow me to remind you that if you should determine a publication to be inadmissible at CSP-Sac, you are legally obligated to provide to the sender and the intended recipient the name or identification of the publication, and the specific reason why it is being censored. This reason must be legitimately related to penological interested as laid out in Turner v. Safely.

We are requesting (1) a detailed explanation of why this publication was denied delivery to the above mentioned prisoners, (2) an investigation into the validity of the claim that it should be denied, so that it may be overturned, (3) prompt delivery of the publications Under Lock & Key issue 13 and our Censorship Guide, and (4) an end to the blind ban of communications between MIM Distributors and prisoners held at CSP-Sacramento. We look forward to your timely response concerning the overturn of this incorrect denial.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties