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