MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
MIM Distributors says no notification of censorship is unconstitutional
Show Text
Warden Leland McEwen
Calipatria State Prison
P.O. Box 5001
Calipatria, CA 92233-5001
January 24th, 2012
RE: Censorship incident occurred at Calipatria State Prison – exclusion of publication sent to prisoner xxx by MIM Distributors.
Dear Warden McEwen,
I am writing this letter about what seems to be a censorship incident that recently occurred at Calipatria State Prison.
MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner issue no. 23 of a publication titled Under Lock & Key.
We recently learned from the prisoner that he never received the publication. Nor did he receive any determination of your Department explaining whether and why the publication was censored. MIM Distributors didn’t receive any notice of censorship determination either.
Your DOM states at sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3 that respectively prisoners and publishers have to be notified of negative determinations and entitles both the sender and the recipient to appeal rejections of publications and letters.
As of now, it is impossible for us to understand why the publication hasn’t been delivered to the prisoner and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor it.
As you are certainly aware of, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender’s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoner, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publication sent to Mr. xxx.
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests
1. to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned publication;
2. in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials.
We also request that adequate notice be provided to the prisoner.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
03/08/2013
Prisoner notifies MIM(Prisons) he had an interview with a Lieutenant, but "I never received ULK 23"
09/07/2021
Warden letter says prisoner agreed he received ULK23 and has not had censorship problems
Eddie L. Pearson, Warden
Sussex I State Prison
24414 Musselwhite Dr.
Waverly, VA 23891
May 9, 2013
RE: Censorship of book mailed to Mr. XXX
Dear Warden Pearson,
Recently MIM Distributors was notified by the Mailroom Supervisor at Sussex I State Prison that the book titled A Curtain of Ignorance by Felix Greene was denied delivery to the above-named prisoner, who is held in your custody. This book was returned to MIM Distributors with a "Notice of Unauthorized Correspondence." There was no reason checked on this Notice to indicate what justified this censorship. Even though it was not checked, there was text written in the "Other" section, "material enclosed unauthorized." That is the only clue offered as to why this book was returned.
What is even more confusing is that Mr. xxx even had a Property Request Form approved by Ms. Bellamy PP for receipt of this book. The Personal Property Request Form containing Ms. Bellamy's signature was enclosed with an invoice when the book was mailed to Mr. XXX. I understand that all incoming mail is subject to inspection and approval per various DOC Operating Procedures, but it is still surprising that a book would be approved for Mr. xxx's property, but then rejected without cause.
Ultimately, I am writing this letter to:
1) Inquire as to why this book was denied delivery to Mr. XXXXXX, and
2) appeal this censorship in an effort to have this book approved for delivery to Mr. XXXXXX.
I appreciate your consideration, and anticipate your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
Director's Review Committee
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099
5 May 2013
Dear Director's Review Committee,
I am in receipt of a notice that Under Lock & Key No. 31 (March/April 2013) has been denied delivery to prisoners in the Texas Department of Criminial Justice. The reason cited for this censorship is Board Policy-03.91 Uniform Offender Correspondence Rules "Reason C. Page 6 contains and advocates a hunger strike." I am writing to appeal that censorship, and to ask that all copies of this publication which have been mails to prisoners within the TDCJ system without further delay.
Reason C states "Publications contians material that a reasonable person would construe as written solely for the purpose of communicating information designed to achieve a breakdown of prisons through offender disruption such as strikes or riots."
It is true that page 6 of ULK 31 contains a report on a hunger strike. However, prisoners have a right to read the newspaper, which includes news reports within Under Lock & Key. With all the mainstream media outlets reporting on the hunger strike in the Guantanamo Bay prison lately, is your Department also censoring these newspapers for Reason C?
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
Item delivered to prison according to USPS Certified Mail
Show Text
Your item was delivered at 10:59 am on February 13, 2012 in CRESCENT CITY, CA 95531.
05/01/2013
MIM Distributors notifies Warden of ongoing censorship
Show Text
. . .
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
Warden Greg Lewis
Pelican Bay State Prison
5905 Lake Earl Drive Crescent City, CA 95531
May 1, 2013
RE: Censorship incidents occurred at Pelican Bay State Prison – exclusion of publication sent to xxx
Dear Warden Lewis,
I am writing this letter about a series of censorship incidents that has been ongoing at Pelican Bay State Prison. Mr. XXX has recently informed MIM Distributors that several items which we have sent him have not reached him. In fact, one of the items was sent via Certified Mail with the USPS, and was confirmed as delivered. The primary concern is that neither Mr. XXX nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship of any of the materials listed below.
Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 24 (January/February 2012) sent January 30, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Book Jailhouse Lawyer's Handbook sent February 8, 2012 via USPS First Class with
Certified Mail Service
Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 25 (March/April 2012) sent March 30, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 26 (May/June 2012) sent June 1, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Magazine MIM Theory 13: Revolutionary Culture and Newsletter Under Lock & Key 27 (July/August 2012) sent July 27, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Your DOM states at sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3 that respectively prisoners and publishers have to be notified of negative determinations and entitles both the sender and the recipient to appeal rejections of publications and letters. As of now, it is impossible for us to understand why the letters and publications haven’t been delivered to the prisoner and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor them.
As you are certainly aware, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender’s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoners, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publications listed above.
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests
- to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned letters and publications;
- in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials;
- and that adequate notice be provided to Mr.XXX of any information pertaining to mail intended for him from MIM Distributors, past, present and future.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response. I have enclosed copies of the Certified Mail Receipt and confirmation of deliver for the Jailhouse Lawyer's Handbook. If course we would have liked to appeal this censorship in a more timely fashion, but having not afforded the courtesy of notification of censorship, there was of course a delay between when the items were censored and when we discovered the censorship.
MIM Distributors appeals ongoing ban of MIM mail at Stateville CC
Show Text
Publication Review Committee
16830 So. Broadway St.
P.O. Box 112
Joliet, IL 60434
April 11, 2013
RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. XXX
Dear PRC,
On August 25, 2012 MIM Distributors mailed a single envelope containing 3 form letters to the above-named prisoner held at Stateville Correctional Center. The contents of this envelope was a form letter explaining the services of the prisoner support organization MIM(Prisons), a letter inquiring about the prisoner's plans after his release from prison, and a letter inviting him to participate in a study course. The envelope and contents was returned to MIM Distributors with "Banned From Facility" written on the envelope. It was not accompanied with any indication as to why this mail was banned, or what policy even allows mail to be banned in IDOC. Nor were we sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.
Dating back to 2008, we have documentation tracking the illegal censorship of mail at Lawrence Correctional Center. This mail ranges from magazines such as MIM Theory 9: Psychology (published by MIM Distributors), to the bimonthly publication Under Lock & Key (published by MIM Distributors), as well as simple letters such as this one. The common thread with all this mail is that there is no legal or formal notification given to the sender as to why the mail is being banned, and the sender is not being afforded an opportunity to appeal the censorship.
Your Administrative Code Title 20 Section 525.230 Procedure for Review of Publications clearly states at point c) that "If a review is initiated, the offender shall be notified in writing that the publication is under review and the notice shall include an explanation why the publication is deemed to contain unacceptable material in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. If the publication was mailed directly from the publisher, a copy of the notice shall be sent to the publisher. The written notice shall be sent to the offender and the publisher, if applicable, no later than 30 days from the date the correctional facility receives the publication. The written notice shall indicate that:
1) The offender may submit a written supportive statement or other documentation within seven days after the date of the notice that the publication is under review. An extension will be granted if in the opinion of the Officer there is a legitimate reason why relevant information could not be submitted timely.
2) The publisher shall be allowed 21 days from the date of the notice to file an objection and to submit a written supportive statement or other documentation."
Additionally, also from your own Administrative Code, at 525.230, "b) A publication may not be rejected solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social, or sexual or because its contents are unpopular or repugnant. A publication that may be rejected includes, but is not limited to, a publication or portion thereof that meets one of the following criteria:"
As you are likely aware, the U.S. Supreme Court also has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender’s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoners, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publications listed above.
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
Warden
04/24/2013
Warden Lemke claims insitutions and department can ban literature/materials Download Documentation
MIM Distributors requests independent review
Show Text
DAI Deputy Director
Department of Corrections
2729 Plaza Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65109
14 April 2013
RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 26
Dear Sir/Madam,
We have received notice from the staff at Crossroads Correctional Facility that Under Lock & Key, May/June 2012, Issue #26 has been censored by the Missouri Department of Corrections. This letter is to request an independent review of this decision.
This incident is part of what is becoming a pattern of the department censoring Under Lock &Key on the grounds that it promotes violence when there are articles that mention violence to criticize it. In my letter to you a month ago I pointed out that artwork criticizing the violence of the Newtown shooting was used to justify censorship. In this more recent case, ULK 26, the cited reason for censorship is a page with an article about the unjust shooting of Trayvon Martin. There is a piece of art with the article that depicts violence in an obvious criticism of the shooting of unarmed Black men. It is my contention that this criticism of the shooting of Trayvon Martin does not promote violence among prisoners at Crossroads Correctional Facility.
Once again, it seems the reviewer, who no doubt must review a lot of material in a day, mistakenly saw depictions of violence as promoting it, rather than reading the articles to see that they both served as a critique. I hope you agree and allow Mr. XXXXXX to receive Under Lock & Key Issue 26. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter.
MPC Hoiland tells prisoner what mail has been processed for h from MIM Distributors Download Documentation
11/12/2012
Prisoner says s/he never received 10/8/12 mail from MIM Distributors Download Documentation
11/16/2012
MPC Hoiland says they're responsible for mail to be delivered from mailroom to prisoner Download Documentation
04/13/2013
MIM Distributors inquires about multiple censorship incidents at SRCI
Show Text
Mr. R. Geer, Publication Review
2575 Center St. NE
Salem, Oregon 97301
April 13, 2013
RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. xxx, Snake River CI
Dear Mr. Geer,
Recently MIM Distributors was notified by the above-named prisoner that three articles of mail we sent to him were never received. The articles of mail were a magazine titled MIM Theory 13, and two publications titled Under Lock & Key issues No. 27 (July/August 2012) and 28 (September/October 2012). Under Lock & Key 27 (ULK 27) and MIM Theory 13 were mailed to Mr. xxx from MIM Distributors on July 27, 2012. They were mailed together in the same envelope, via Standard Presorted mail with the USPS. The publication ULK 28 was sent on October 2, 2012 via Standard Presorted mail with the USPS.
MIM Distributors was not notified of the censorship incidents of any of these three publications. Mr. xxx investigated the censorship further, and the mail room staff at Snake River Correctional Institution (SRCI) claim they never received ULK 27or ULK 28. They informed him that MIM Theory 13 was mailed to Mr. Geer in July 2012, and that it is still under review. I would like to highlight the illegality of these incidents.
➤ First, of course, is the fact that MIM Distributors was not notified of the censorship or review of these materials via the process outlined in the Oregon Administrative Rules and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Your own mail rules state at chapter 291-131-0037
(6) Correspondence and Publications: When, after opening, mail is rejected for violation of these or other department rules the following procedures shall be followed:
(a) Rejected Mail:
(A) Non-inmate sender: The sender and intended inmate recipient shall be notified of the rejection of mail, including the reasons, on a Mail Violation Notice (CD 618a) for correspondence, or a Publication Violation Notice for a publication. If the rejection is based upon written or pictorial content, the notice shall advise that an independent review of the rejection may be obtained by writing to the functional unit manager within 30 days of the date of the notice. Mail rejected based on written or pictorial content shall be returned intact to the sender. The rejected portion(s) of the mail shall be photocopied and retained pending any administrative review. If no administrative review is requested, the photocopy shall be maintained according to archive standards.
As you are certainly aware, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender’s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoner, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publications listed above.
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
➤ A second problem I would like to highlight is the claim that Under Lock & Key 27 was not received, but MIM Theory 13 is in review. These two publications were mailed in the same envelope. Mr. xxx was even provided with a list of all the mail that has been processed for him from MIM Distributors, and ULK 27 was not on the list. This is an unreasonable claim.
➤ Lastly, Mr. xxx informed us in February 2013 that MIM Theory 13 is under review by Mr. Geer, and has been under review since July 2012. The practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.
We recently re-sent Mr. xxx the publications Under Lock & Key issues 27 and 28. We are hopeful that he received them without any illegal hangups or unjust censorship. We appreciate your time and consideration in assuring SRCI staff are upholding the policies, procedures and law which they are obliged to work under. We also anticipate your determination MIM Theory 13.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
Mail room is playing dumb, even though they sent mail from same envelope for review
Show Text
The ULK 27 that came with MIM Theory 13, the mail room is playing stupid on it.
04/13/2013
MIM Distributors inquires about multiple censorship incidents at SRCI
Show Text
Mr. R. Geer, Publication Review
2575 Center St. NE
Salem, Oregon 97301
April 13, 2013
RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. xxx, Snake River CI
Dear Mr. Geer,
Recently MIM Distributors was notified by the above-named prisoner that three articles of mail we sent to him were never received. The articles of mail were a magazine titled MIM Theory 13, and two publications titled Under Lock & Key issues No. 27 (July/August 2012) and 28 (September/October 2012). Under Lock & Key 27 (ULK 27) and MIM Theory 13 were mailed to Mr. xxx from MIM Distributors on July 27, 2012. They were mailed together in the same envelope, via Standard Presorted mail with the USPS. The publication ULK 28 was sent on October 2, 2012 via Standard Presorted mail with the USPS.
MIM Distributors was not notified of the censorship incidents of any of these three publications. Mr. xxx investigated the censorship further, and the mail room staff at Snake River Correctional Institution (SRCI) claim they never received ULK 27or ULK 28. They informed him that MIM Theory 13 was mailed to Mr. Geer in July 2012, and that it is still under review. I would like to highlight the illegality of these incidents.
➤ First, of course, is the fact that MIM Distributors was not notified of the censorship or review of these materials via the process outlined in the Oregon Administrative Rules and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Your own mail rules state at chapter 291-131-0037
(6) Correspondence and Publications: When, after opening, mail is rejected for violation of these or other department rules the following procedures shall be followed:
(a) Rejected Mail:
(A) Non-inmate sender: The sender and intended inmate recipient shall be notified of the rejection of mail, including the reasons, on a Mail Violation Notice (CD 618a) for correspondence, or a Publication Violation Notice for a publication. If the rejection is based upon written or pictorial content, the notice shall advise that an independent review of the rejection may be obtained by writing to the functional unit manager within 30 days of the date of the notice. Mail rejected based on written or pictorial content shall be returned intact to the sender. The rejected portion(s) of the mail shall be photocopied and retained pending any administrative review. If no administrative review is requested, the photocopy shall be maintained according to archive standards.
As you are certainly aware, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender’s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoner, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publications listed above.
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
➤ A second problem I would like to highlight is the claim that Under Lock & Key 27 was not received, but MIM Theory 13 is in review. These two publications were mailed in the same envelope. Mr. xxx was even provided with a list of all the mail that has been processed for him from MIM Distributors, and ULK 27 was not on the list. This is an unreasonable claim.
➤ Lastly, Mr. xxx informed us in February 2013 that MIM Theory 13 is under review by Mr. Geer, and has been under review since July 2012. The practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.
We recently re-sent Mr. xxx the publications Under Lock & Key issues 27 and 28. We are hopeful that he received them without any illegal hangups or unjust censorship. We appreciate your time and consideration in assuring SRCI staff are upholding the policies, procedures and law which they are obliged to work under. We also anticipate your determination MIM Theory 13.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
(Unknown date) Magazine sent out for review
Show Text
[excerpt from 2/25/2013 letter] The mail room recently told me the "MIM Theory 13: Revolutionary Culture" was sent to the Dome Building in Salem (to a Mr. R. Geer, 2575 Center St NE, Salem, Oregon) for review. It's been there since July. I recently kyted Mr. Geer and am waiting for a response.
04/13/2013
MIM Distributors inquires about multiple censorship incidents at SRCI
Show Text
Mr. R. Geer, Publication Review
2575 Center St. NE
Salem, Oregon 97301
April 13, 2013
RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. xxx, Snake River CI
Dear Mr. Geer,
Recently MIM Distributors was notified by the above-named prisoner that three articles of mail we sent to him were never received. The articles of mail were a magazine titled MIM Theory 13, and two publications titled Under Lock & Key issues No. 27 (July/August 2012) and 28 (September/October 2012). Under Lock & Key 27 (ULK 27) and MIM Theory 13 were mailed to Mr. xxx from MIM Distributors on July 27, 2012. They were mailed together in the same envelope, via Standard Presorted mail with the USPS. The publication ULK 28 was sent on October 2, 2012 via Standard Presorted mail with the USPS.
MIM Distributors was not notified of the censorship incidents of any of these three publications. Mr. xxx investigated the censorship further, and the mail room staff at Snake River Correctional Institution (SRCI) claim they never received ULK 27or ULK 28. They informed him that MIM Theory 13 was mailed to Mr. Geer in July 2012, and that it is still under review. I would like to highlight the illegality of these incidents.
➤ First, of course, is the fact that MIM Distributors was not notified of the censorship or review of these materials via the process outlined in the Oregon Administrative Rules and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Your own mail rules state at chapter 291-131-0037
(6) Correspondence and Publications: When, after opening, mail is rejected for violation of these or other department rules the following procedures shall be followed:
(a) Rejected Mail:
(A) Non-inmate sender: The sender and intended inmate recipient shall be notified of the rejection of mail, including the reasons, on a Mail Violation Notice (CD 618a) for correspondence, or a Publication Violation Notice for a publication. If the rejection is based upon written or pictorial content, the notice shall advise that an independent review of the rejection may be obtained by writing to the functional unit manager within 30 days of the date of the notice. Mail rejected based on written or pictorial content shall be returned intact to the sender. The rejected portion(s) of the mail shall be photocopied and retained pending any administrative review. If no administrative review is requested, the photocopy shall be maintained according to archive standards.
As you are certainly aware, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender’s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoner, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publications listed above.
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
➤ A second problem I would like to highlight is the claim that Under Lock & Key 27 was not received, but MIM Theory 13 is in review. These two publications were mailed in the same envelope. Mr. xxx was even provided with a list of all the mail that has been processed for him from MIM Distributors, and ULK 27 was not on the list. This is an unreasonable claim.
➤ Lastly, Mr. xxx informed us in February 2013 that MIM Theory 13 is under review by Mr. Geer, and has been under review since July 2012. The practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.
We recently re-sent Mr. xxx the publications Under Lock & Key issues 27 and 28. We are hopeful that he received them without any illegal hangups or unjust censorship. We appreciate your time and consideration in assuring SRCI staff are upholding the policies, procedures and law which they are obliged to work under. We also anticipate your determination MIM Theory 13.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
B. Rose
Publication Review Officer
Menard Correctional Center
711 Kansas Street
Menard, IL 62259
April 11, 2013
RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key March/April 2013 No. 30
Dear Publication Review Officer Rose,
On April 1, 2013, we were notified that Menard Correctional Center is reviewing the above-named publication for potential censorship. This letter is to object to the potential censorship, and to petition you to allow this publication to be received by our subscribers in Menard Correctional Institution.
I believe you will find upon a close inspection of the publication that your concerns of "disruption" and "safety and security" are unsubstantiated. The articles in Under Lock & Key only advocate legal means of combatting illegal conditions of confinement. Please be aware that several Illinois institutions have allowed subscribers to receive this issue of ULK, such as Dixon Correctional Center, Hill Correctional Center, Stateville Correctional Center, among others.
If you do decide to censor this publication, please notify us as to the specific reasoning (laws or policies which it violates), as well as your justification for why Menard Correctional Center has a different standard of publication review than the above-mentioned facilities.
Also, please send a copy of the mail rules for Menard Correctional Center and any other mail rules you think would be helpful for a distributor of books and magazines to know. You can send this information to the address below.
MIM Distributors protests ongoing censorship without notification at Lawrence CC
Show Text
Publication Review Committee
Lawrence Correctional Center
10930 Lawrence Rd
Sumner, IL 62466-4915
April 11, 2013
RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. XXX
Dear PRC,
On March 1, 2013 MIM Distributors mailed a single sheet of paper to the above-named prisoner held at Lawrence Correctional Center. The contents of this paper was a list of mail that we had sent to Mr. XXX, and a brief letter asking him if he received it. The letter was returned to MIM Distributors, unopened, with "Return to Sender" stamped on the envelope. This letter was not accompanied with any indication as to why it was being returned. Nor were we sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.
Dating back to 2011, we have documentation tracking the illegal censorship of mail at Lawrence Correctional Center. This mail ranges from magazines such as MIM Theory 10: Labor Aristocracy (published by MIM Distributors), to the bimonthly publication Under Lock & Key (published by MIM Distributors), as well as simple letters such as this one. We have documentation that two (2) letters inquiring about receipt of mail have been returned in this same way, and a letter we sent to a prisoner informing him/her of legal means of appealing censorship was also censored in the same exact way. The common thread with all this mail is that there is no notification given to the sender that the mail is being withheld delivery to the intended recipient, why, or offering MIM Distributors a chance to appeal.
Your Administrative Code Title 20 Section 525.230 Procedure for Review of Publications clearly states at point c) that "If a review is initiated, the offender shall be notified in writing that the publication is under review and the notice shall include an explanation why the publication is deemed to contain unacceptable material in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. If the publication was mailed directly from the publisher, a copy of the notice shall be sent to the publisher. The written notice shall be sent to the offender and the publisher, if applicable, no later than 30 days from the date the correctional facility receives the publication. The written notice shall indicate that:
1) The offender may submit a written supportive statement or other documentation within seven days after the date of the notice that the publication is under review. An extension will be granted if in the opinion of the Officer there is a legitimate reason why relevant information could not be submitted timely.
2) The publisher shall be allowed 21 days from the date of the notice to file an objection and to submit a written supportive statement or other documentation."
As you are likely aware, the U.S. Supreme Court also has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender’s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoners, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publications listed above.
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
Promotes, incites, or advocates violence, disorder or the violation of state or federal law, or advocates, facilitates or otherwise presents a risk of lawlessness, violence, anarchy or rebellion against a governmental authority. [Download Documentation]This was overturned
DAI Deputy Director
Department of Corrections
2729 Plaza Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65109
12 March 2013
RE: Statewide Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 30
Dear Sir/Madam,
We have received many notices, from multiple institutions in the Missouri DOC that state that Under Lock & Key, Jan/Feb, Issue #30 has been censored by the department. This letter is to request an independent review of this decision.
The reason stated is "IS13-1.2 Censorship Procedure III C-2 a.," which refers to "promotes, incites or advocates violence, disorder or the violation of state or federal law, or advocates, facilitates or otherwise presents a risk of lawlessness…" Under Lock & Key is very explicit in discouraging prisoners from using violence or from violating the law. The notification cites pages 1 and 9 of the newsletter. While there is a reference to violence on both pages, neither could be construed to be encouraging or promoting violence.
The first page contains a review of a book on economics and an article about the shooting that occurred in Newtown, CT. The artwork for the latter does depict Uncle Sam firing a gun, but this was a critique of the use of violence in this country and clearly not encouraging prisoners to follow suit.
Page 9 contains portions of an article about segregation in schools, which has no mention of violence or lawbreaking, not to mention advocating it. This page also contains the beginnings of an article on censorship, coincidentally, that compares statements about violence made by the founding fathers to materials that were deemed "dangerous" by the Wisconsin DOC. Perhaps the reviewer in Missouri wanted to prove the writer incorrect that these statements by the founding fathers would not be censored by prison employees. But they were put forth to prove a point in a legal argument, which is the type of arguments ULK consistently promotes, not as a means to make any argument for violence as is evident by reading the article.
It seems the reviewer mistakenly saw mentions of violence as promoting it, rather than reading the articles to see that they both served as a critique. I hope you agree and allow the prisoners held throughout Missouri to receive their copies of Under Lock & Key Issue 30. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter.
![[Download Documentation]](http://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c3806.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](http://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c3781.jpg){kind=link}
