Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Warden Greg Lewis
Pelican Bay State Prison
5905 Lake Earl Drive

Crescent City, CA 95531

October 21, 2012

RE: Censorship incident occurred at Pelican Bay State Prison -- Under Lock & Key No. 26 (May/June 2012) denied delivery to Mr. XXX

Dear Warden Lewis,

Mr. XXX has recently informed MIM Distributors of the Second Level Review you wrote responding to his appeal of the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 26 (May/June 2012). I have an enclosed a copy of this Second Level Review for your reference. This letter is written in support of Mr. XXX's complaint. We believe the publication is not a threat to the safety or security of the institution, and we believe it should be permitted for receipt by Mr. XXX.

One article you cite in your Second Level Review as a reason to censor this newsletter is the article titled "Retaliation for Hunger Strike and New Protest Ideas" on page 9 of ULK 26. You cite this article under FINDINGS I, and page 9 is cited on the original Notification of Disapproval. This article is a report from a Corcoran prisoner outlining the retaliation he and his fellow prisoners are facing, even ones who did not participate in the state-wide hunger strikes in 2011.

Unfortunately, like many prisoners across the state, the author has discovered that filing grievances does not lead to resolution of the problems and abuses. In this article, the author offers a suggestion for a method of peaceful and legal protest to draw attention from prison administrators, such as yourself. Under Lock & Key is a peaceful newsletter which discourages all prisoners from initiating any violence, against guards or fellow prisoners. But if prisoners are being forced to live in unsafe and unsanitary conditions, and are underfed, erroneously censored, and brutalized, and are still not able to resolve these illegal human rights violations by the "proper channels," what then do you suggest they should do?

Since the editors, contributors, and subscribers of Under Lock & Key do not advocate violence, we instead offer ideas and discussion for other ways to resolve these horrible conditions. If people do not learn of these nonviolent methods of protest, they will instead lash out in violent ways out of frustration. Violence is a safety hazard for prison employees and prisoners alike.

Regarding FINDING II, in which you state Under Lock & Key is "inmate-to-inmate correspondence," I ask what other prisoner newsletters you censor for this reason? There are dozens of newsletters written by and for prisoners on a very wide range of topics, and I would be surprised if prisoners at PBSP were not also subscribed to newsletters your department finds more agreeable than ours. But regardless of the content, this reason for censorship should also apply to those other newsletters; otherwise it is clear you are using this as a smoke screen for your political agenda against anti-imperialism, which is of course illegal. Therefore I would like to request a list of materials which have been censored at Pelican Bay State Prison from June 2012 to present.

Also in FINDING II, you assert that "many prison inmates are committed to and promote activities of inmate terrorist groups..." and make a leap of faith that the prisoners who contribute to Under Lock & Key fall into this category. You go on describe an alleged conspiracy being waged by these "inmate terrorist groups" to "cause other mass disruptions of prison programs." First, prison programs are disrupted already because there is no positive programming to speak of. That anyone could disrupt prison programs is a joke. (Unless you are referring to psychological torment, contaminating food, and cell extractions as "programming.") Second, Under Lock & Key is not part of any conspiracy (defined as "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful"). Everything Under Lock & Key stands for is printed right in the newsletter, none of it is illegal, and all we are trying to do is help people, not harm them (even the guards):

"ULK serves as a forum to develop and promote agitational campaigns led by MIM(Prisons) and USW. Our current battles in the United States are legally permitted. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts. MIM(Prisons) and its publications explicitly oppose the use of armed struggles at this time in the imperialist countries (including the United States)." from page 2 of Under Lock & Key No. 26

Therefore, with the present letter, MIM Distributors requests
a Director's Level Review be conducted on the publication Under Lock & Key No. 26 (May/June 2012) in favor of delivery to Mr. XXX;
the determination of this Director's Level Review be sent to Mr. XXX and MIM Distributors;
the publication be delivered to Mr. XXX;
and a list of the materials censored by PBSP mailroom staff from June 2012 to present.

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

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors



CC: Affected parties
Secretary Matthew Cate

Warden Greg Lewis
Pelican Bay State Prison
5905 Lake Earl Drive
Crescent City, CA 95531

October 20, 2012

RE: Censorship incidents occurred at Pelican Bay State Prison ? exclusion of letters and publications sent to prisoner XXX by MIM Distributors

Dear Warden Lewis,

I am writing this letter regarding a series of censorship incidents that occurred at Pelican Bay State Prison. Mr. XXX has recently informed MIM Distributors that several items which we have sent him have not reached him. Unless there is a widespread problem with your USPS carrier, I suspect the mailroom staff at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP) is at fault. 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. 25 (March/April 2012) sent March 30, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Magazine MIM Theory 11: Amerikan Prisons on Trial sent March 30, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 24 (January/February 2012) sent January 30, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 23 (November/December 2011) sent November 18, 2011 via presorted standard mail
Letter about how to fight censorship, sent October 21, 2011 via first class mail
Letter containing study materials, sent October 13, 2011 via first class mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 22 (September/October 2011) sent September 21, 2011 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.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties

My name is xxxx. I sent you a letter about a book I got in the mail but could not have. I tried to send this book home but you said "Funds Not Available." On 10-10-12 you sent me an answer to this letter stating "your publication was destroyed per policy." As I said in my first letter, you said it is $2.90 to send the book home. I am indigent. I get 10 indigent stamps a month. 7 indigent stamps would have covered the mailing of this book. So why was it destroyed?

You just told the inmate in ABCDEFG (who also got something in the mail you would not let him get) that he could have used his 10 indigent stamps to sent it out but tit would not cover the mailing. So why was my book destroyed when I have the stamps to cover it? And policy says if we (indigent inmates) don't have the money you are supposed to take the money from the indigent inmate trust fund. So I need to know who destroyed my book? I need their full name because I will be filing a lawsuit.

You must have funds available in your account for trust fund officer to draw and mailroom to place on outgoing mail.


mail room 10-12-12

Assistant Director of Support Services
North Carolina Department of Corrections
Division of Prisons
4260 MSC
Raleigh, NC, 27699-4260


January 13th, 2012

RE: Censorship incident occurred at Lanesboro Correctional Institution ? exclusion of publications sent to prisoner XXX by MIM Distributors.

I am writing this letter about what seems to be a censorship incident that recently occurred at Lanesboro Correctional Institution in Polkton, North Carolina.

MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner three different issue of a publication titled Under Lock & Key. Precisely MIM Distributors sent Mr. XXX:
-Under Lock & Key, issue 21 on 07/28/2011
-Under Lock & Key, issue 22 on 09/21/2011
-Under Lock & Key, issue 23 on 11/18/2011

We recently learned from the prisoner (Mr. XXX) that he never received any of the publications listed above. Nor did he receive any determination of your Department explaining whether and why the publications were censored. MIM Distributors didn?t receive any notice of censorship determination either.

Your Division of Prisons Policy D.0100 states at sections D.0103 and D.0107 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.

The same Policy obligates your mailroom staff to come to a determination within 7 days from the arrival of the publication.

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 Mr. XXXXXX, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner (Mr. XXX) 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 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.

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

Richard Neeley, Administrator
Lanesboro Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 280
Polkton, NC 28135

Cynthia Bostic, Assistant Director
Support Services
4274 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4274

June 6, 2012

RE: Your April 11, 2012 letter regarding denial of several issues of Under Lock & Key to Mr. XXX

Dear Ms. Bostic,

Thank you for your response to my letter concerning the above-mentioned problem. I would like to contest two points made in your letter, both of which point to a similar concern.

Issue 1: Claim that Under Lock & Key No. 21 has not been denied in North Carolina

In your letter you state that "Under Locke [sic] & Key Issue # 21 has not been disapproved for inmate XXX or any other inmate in our system as of date." However, according to my records, MIM Distributors is aware of four separate facilities where prisoners' issues of Under Lock & Key No. 21 (July/August 2011) have never been delivered to them. Not Surprisingly, no notification was given to either MIM Distributors or the prisoners.

The facilities in question are Brown Creek Correctional Institution, Scotland Correctional Institution, Alexander Correctional Institution, and Lanesboro Correctional Institution. Notably, Lanesboro and Scotland Correctional Institutions both have histories of illegally censoring materials from MIM Distributors.

Issue 2: Claim that Under Lock & Key No. 22 and No. 23 were not received for Mr. XXX

In your letter you state that "We did not find any record of issue #22 or issue #23 of Under Locke [sic] & Key being received and disapproved for receipt by inmate XXX." Yet, according to my records, Under Lock & Key No. 22 (September/October 2011) was mailed via Presorted Standard mail with the USPS on September 21, 2011, and Under Lock & Key No. 23 (November/December 2011) was mailed with the same service, on November 18, 2011.

Conclusion

Since no notification was given to either the prisoners or MIM Distributors, you are correct that these incidents of censorship would not be recorded in your system. But tell me, then, what happened to them? I suspect you will point a finger at the USPS or MIM Distributors. Yet, MIM Distributors mailed these publications out via Standard Presorted mail with all the rest of them. Considering the culture of eagerness to censor Under Lock & Key amongst North Carolina prison administrators and mailroom staff, we wonder if the issues are not being simply thrown away upon arrival. What safeguards does your administration implement to ensure that mail is not thrown away by mailroom staff?

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

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties