Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Warden David B. Long
Ironwood State Prison
P.O. Box 2229
Blythe, CA 92226
April 8, 2014

RE: Censorship incidents occurred at Pelican Bay State Prison ? exclusion of letterssent to prisoner xxx by MIM Distributors

Dear Warden Long,

I am writing this letter about an incident of censorship at Ironwood State Prison. On March 11, 2014 MIM Distributors mailed an envelope, less than 2 ounces, via USPS to the above named prisoner. The envelope was returned to MIM Distributors with "Contents Not Authorized" stamped on the front.

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 letter wasn't delivered to the prisoner and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor it.

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 that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the item in question.

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.

With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests
? to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned letter;
? 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.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors



CC: Affected parties

Associate Warden V. Allen
Ironwood State Prison
19005 Wiley's Well Rd
PO Box 2229
Blythe, CA 92226

May 20, 2014

RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. xxx at Ironwood State Prison

Dear Associate Warden Allen,

This letter is in response to your letter dated April 24, 2014 in which you responded to my April 8 letter regarding censorship of mail MIM Distributors sent to xxx, while housed at Ironwood State Prison. Mr. xxx is currently still housed at Ironwood State Prison. The letter in question was in an envelope sent via First Class Mail with USPS.

In your April 24 letter, you wrote "Unfortunately, without a copy of the letter in question, there is no way to make a determination as to the reason for denying its delivery to the inmate." Enclosed is a copy of the letter in question, which we hope aids in your resolution of this illegal censorship.

As we noted in our previous letter to you, 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 letter wasn't delivered to the prisoner and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor it.

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 that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the item in question.

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.

With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests
? to know why the letter was censored from delivery to Mr. xxx;
? 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.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

Enclosed: Study questions for "On Contradiction" and MIM Theory 5: Diet for a Small Red Planet

CC: Affected parties

Alexis Trevino
Martin Correctional Institution
1150 S.W. Allapattah Road
Indiantown, FL 34956-4397

27 April 2014

RE: Censorship of routine mail

Dear Warden Trevino,

This letter is in response to an "Unauthorized Mail Return Receipt" dated 4/14/2014 addressed to MIM Distributors and signed by mail room personnel Schram for a letter sent to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX. It claims the content of the letter "Depicts, describes or encourages activities which may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption."

The mail in question included a letter giving guidance for drawing artwork for use in publications distributed by MIM. I find it hard to believe that a letter requesting artwork would lead to the use of violence or group disruption.

As the notice indicates that you have copies of the letter on file, I am requesting that you please respond and clarify which section(s) your staff found to depict activities that would lead to violence.


Sincerely,

Warden Sloan
Century Correctional Institution
400 Tedder Road
Century, Florida 32535-3659

26 April 2014

RE: Censorship of routine mail

Dear Mr. Sloan,

This letter is in response to an "Unauthorized Mail Return Receipt" dated 4/17/2014 addressed to MIM Distributors and signed by J McGovern for a letter sent to Mr. XXX YYYY. It claims the content of the letter was "dangerously inflammatory in that it advocates or encourages riot, insurrection, disruption of the institution, violation of department or institution rules."

The mail in question included letters to and from your department regarding censorship. In addition it included letters addressing the inadequacy of the application of the grievance system (failure to apply Rule 33-103.001 (1)). I am confused as to what department rules are encouraged to be broken when all of the content of the letter in question was actually information on efforts to get the department to follow its own rules.

As the notice indicates that you have copies of the letter on file, I am requesting that you please respond and clarify which section(s) your staff found to advocate violating the rules and which rules you are concerned about being violated as a result of this routine mail correspondence.


Sincerely,

Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

19 April 2014

RE: Impounding of Under Lock & Key No. 37 at FSP & Blackwater River CF

Dear Ms. Morrison,

This letter is in response to notifications received from both Florida State Prison and Blackwater River Correctional Facility notifying MIM Distributors of the impounding of Under Lock & Key No. 37. The purpose of this letter is to appeal those decisions and have those newsletters delivered to their intended recipients.

The Supreme Court decision governing the First Amendment in prisons in the United States (Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 416 n.14) is clear that regulations barring writings that "express 'inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views'" were not sufficiently "neutral" or "unrelated to the suppression of expression" to be legally allowable. The Florida State Prison notice cites the ?Entire booklet? as ?advocat[ing] or encourag[ing] riot, insurrection, disruption of the institution, violation of department or institution rules.? There is no content advocating any such actions within Under Lock & Key No. 37, nor does Assistant Warden D. Jackson cite any examples of such content. The blanket rejection of publications that one finds disagreeable is a violation of the Constitution of the United State, which your department is bound to uphold.

The Blackwater River notice cites an article on fundraising and an article on prisoners that are not eating food from the commissary as presenting ?a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the correctional system or the safety of any person.? Certainly no ones safety is being threatened in either of these benign activities. Stating these articles are ?inflammatory? does not pass the standard set by Thornburgh for censoring mail to prisoners.

I am requesting that you allow all individuals held by FDOC to receive Issue 37 of Under Lock & Key.

Sincerely,

Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

19 April 2014

RE: Impounding of Under Lock & Key No. 37 at FSP & Blackwater River CF

Dear Ms. Morrison,

This letter is in response to notifications received from both Florida State Prison and Blackwater River Correctional Facility notifying MIM Distributors of the impounding of Under Lock & Key No. 37. The purpose of this letter is to appeal those decisions and have those newsletters delivered to their intended recipients.

The Supreme Court decision governing the First Amendment in prisons in the United States (Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 416 n.14) is clear that regulations barring writings that "express 'inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views'" were not sufficiently "neutral" or "unrelated to the suppression of expression" to be legally allowable. The Florida State Prison notice cites the "Entire booklet" as "advocat[ing] or encourag[ing] riot, insurrection, disruption of the institution, violation of department or institution rules." There is no content advocating any such actions within Under Lock & Key No. 37, nor does Assistant Warden D. Jackson cite any examples of such content. The blanket rejection of publications that one finds disagreeable is a violation of the Constitution of the United State, which your department is bound to uphold.

The Blackwater River notice cites an article on fundraising and an article on prisoners that are not eating food from the commissary as presenting "a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the correctional system or the safety of any person." Certainly no ones safety is being threatened in either of these benign activities. Stating these articles are "inflammatory" does not pass the standard set by Thornburgh for censoring mail to prisoners.

I am requesting that you allow all individuals held by FDOC to receive Issue 37 of Under Lock & Key.

Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

23 February 2014

RE: Censorship of various magazines/newspapers at Taylor CI

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter is in response to the censorship of a package sent to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (#XXXXXX) at Taylor Correctional Institution by MIM Distributors. This package was recently returned to sender with receipt stating a number of unfounded justifications for censorship.

1. ?Excess of 15 pages includes photos? - It is not clear what the issue is here, but the contents were magazines and newspapers.
2. ?Nude photos which reveal genitalia, buttocks, or female breast.? - There are no such photos as should be confirmed if Sgt. H. Smith photocopied the materials as indicated on the return receipt.
3. ?Routine mail delivered in padded enveloped.? - Envelope was not padded, it was a standards USPS priority mail envelope.
4. ?Otherwise presents a threat to the security, order, or rehabilitative objectives of the Correctional System, or to the safety of any person.? - The decision in Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385 stated that, "Prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." None of the notes provided at the bottom of the receipt substantiate this general assertion.
5. ?Depicts, describes or encourages activities which may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption.? - None of the materials promote violence by prisoners, and the argument above applies to this point as well.

MIM Distributors was not given a notice of impoundment or provided an opportunity to appeal this decision. I am requesting that this censorship be reviewed and notice provided to MIM Distributors that this literature will be delivered to prisoners at Taylor CI without interference in the future.

Sincerely,

Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

23 March 2014

RE: Censorship of various magazines/newspapers at Taylor CI

Dear Ms. Morrison,

Thank you for responding to my recent inquiries. However, your response regarding the subject above confused me. Are you saying that Sgt. H. Smith used the wrong form to censor MIM Distributor's mail and therefore it is outside your authority to remedy this? MIM Distributors is not responsible for the mistakes of FDOC staff and the violation of their rights to free speech and association should not be justified by such mistakes. This responsibility falls on the Florida Department of Corrections. According to the form sent, Sgt. Smith should have made copies of the materials censored that you should have access to in order to investigate this matter.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140


p.s. I find it ironic that you upheld the censorship of Under Lock & Key #36 because it had an ?inflammatory tone,? when the article cited to justify censorship was literally about discouraging prisoners from starting fires as a form of protest and encouraging them to study better organizing strategies to address their conditions. I have much personal experience in these matters and I can state with certainty that your department's denial of prisoners' mail from the outside does much more to incite violence in Florida prisons. Your department is legally bound to protect the safety of prisoners and staff and prohibited from enforcing political agendas.

Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

13 April 2014

RE: Censorship of various magazines/newspapers at Taylor CI

Dear Ms. Morrison,

I've received your March 31 letter as well as Brenda Phillips letter of March 24. You both uphold the use of 33-210.101 to censor the publications sent by MIM Distributors, when that code clearly states in the first sentence, ?The provisions of this section shall apply to routine mail. Routine mail is all inmate mail, except legal mail (see Rule 33-210.102, F.A.C.), privileged mail (see Rule 33-210.103, F.A.C.), and publications (see Rule 33-501.401, F.A.C.).? The package in question that was censored contained magazines and newspapers,

Please refer to Florida Administrative Code 33-501.401 Admissible Reading Material, which clearly states ?this section shall apply to all publications, including books, newspapers, magazines, journals and diaries...? and that any impoundment of such material falls under the ultimate authority of the Literature Review Committee. Ms. Morrison, your refusal to take responsibility for this censorship is in clear violation of state rules. It doesn't matter if the staff at Taylor used the wrong form. The State of Florida is still bound to respect the First Amendment rights of MIM Distributors and the prisoners that they send mail to.


Sincerely,