Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

On 10-05-2011, correspondence was stopped for the above-named inmate. The mailing is described as follows: Incoming Correspondence from [MIM Distributors].

The correspondence was disapproved in accordance with the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 15, Section 3136, as it pertains to Sections 3006 and/or 3135:

CCR, Title 15, Section 3006, CONTRABAND, state in part:
(c)(5), Plans to disrupt the order, or breach the security, of any facility (such as riot, escape, strike, etc.)
(c)(7), Coded messages.

It violates regulations or local procedures:
Unauthorized inmate-to-inmate correspondence and/or inmate-to-parolee/probationer correspondence [CCR, Title 15, Section 3139]
Third party correspondence [PBSP DOM Addendum, Section 54010, Attachment 10, #33]

The disposition of the letter/mailing is as follows:
Other (describe): Confiscated by GP ISU. The mailing is disallowed per the CCR, Title 15, Sections 3006, 3135, and 3136.

Signed M. Cleary, Correctional Officer, Investigative Services Unit
B.W. Freeland, Correctional Captain, Investigative Services Unit

Disposition: held pending investigation/appeal

I received a 128-B and a 1819 notifying me that a newsletter from [MIM Distributors] was confiscated. This unjust as there was no third party correspondence. [Sender] world for the newspaper "Under Lock & Key" and was informing me of the ongoing developments of the hunger strike already going on and in which I was already a part of. There is or was no coded messages or plans to disrupt the order of the facility. The letter confiscated unjustly was no more than a newsletter and journal of personal struggles. I and all prisoners have a right to express our political beliefs. The means that prison officials may not punish us simply because of our political beliefs. See Sczerbaty v. Oswald 341 F.Supp 571 (1972). Further, prison officials cannot censor my mail just because it makes rude comments about the prison or prison staff, Breggman v. Farrier 825 F. Supp 231 (1993). Mail cannot be censored because prison officials believe it improperly magnifies complaints or contains inflammatory remarks, Procunier v Martinez (1974) 416 U.S. 396, 413. Penal Code section 2601(c) provides California inmates with a specific right to receive publications. Lastly, the whole basis of the hunger strike is and was a matter of CDCR and PBSP NOT conforming to the laws of the US, California, and its legal courts. The US constitution requires prison officials to allow prisoners to exchange correspondence that is necessary for a legal matter, which is the case here. See Turner v. Safely (1987) 482 U.S. 78; Valandingham v. Bojorquez (9th Cir 1989) 866 F.2d 1135; Murphy v. Shaw (9th Cir. 1999) 195 F.3d 957.