Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Rick Thaler, Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Correctional Institutions Division
P.O. Box 99
Huntsville, Texas 77342

27 March 2012

RE: Censorship incident at Coffield Unit, Tennessee Colony, TX from MIM Distributors to Mr. xxx

Dear Director Thaler,

I am in receipt of a Correspondence/Contraband Denial Form from the Mailroom at Coffield Unit. This form was used to deny a package from MIM Distributors to Mr. xxx. The contents of this package was 5 copies of a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key No. 24 (January/February 2012). The reason cited is "multiple copies."

We believe this decision by Mailroom Staff at Coffield Unit to be an incorrect application of BP-03.91. A review of BP-03.91 (rev. 2, February 11, 2010) reveals that no prohibition to receive multiple copies of publications has been included in the regulations. Indeed, "multiple copies" is not listed under criteria for disapproval in BP 03-91, paragraph IV.A (Content Inspection of General Correspondence), or IV.E. (Content Inspection of Publications). Nor could such a reason constitute a valid basis for rejecting incoming mail, for the U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that only censorship decisions rationally related to a legitimate penological interest may be deemed as constitutional. A ban on multiple copies mail does not seem rationally related to any legitimate penological interest and is therefore evidently unconstitutional.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Regional Director: Robert Eason
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Region II Director's Office
#2 Backgate Road
Tennessee Colony, TX 75803

Senior Warden John Rupert
2661 FM 2054
Tennessee Colony, TX 75884

Rick Thaler, Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Correctional Institutions Division
P.O. Box 99
Huntsville, Texas 77342

24 June 2011

Dear Director Thaler,

I am in receipt of a Decision Form from the Director's Review Committee, upholding the erroneous applicaion of Board Policy (BP) 03.91 Uniform Offender Correspondence Rules. The item was originally denied deliver to Mr. XXX, a prisoner held in Coffield Unit, on 8 April 2011. Mr. XXX appealed the denial on 8 April 2011. The Decision Form from your office is dated 19 May 2011.

This censorship is erroneous because the reason given on 8 April 2011 was "multiple copies of publication (x2)," and your 19 May Decision Form states "The DRC has rendered a decision regarding your appeal of the Unit rejection of the multiple copies of publication received in contradiction with BP 03-91.." First, the publication that was sent to Mr. Taylor was not multiple copies. It was a quantity of the newspaper MIM Notes, which is no longer in print. Each issue of MIM Notes sent in this package was unique, and a quick review of the contents will support this.

Regardless of whether there were multiple issues of MIM Notes newspaper included in the package of newspapers to Mr. XXX, reviewing BP-03.91 (rev. 2, February 11, 2010) demonstrates that it is not even a TDCJ Procedure to censor incoming mail to prisoners based on how many copies of an item are sent. "Multiple copies" is not listed under criteria for disapproval in IV.A. Content Inspection of General Correspondence, or IV.E. Content Inspection of Publications. If you are still upholding the decision to disapprove these newspapers to Mr. Taylor, please point me to the procedure supporting the denial.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties