MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
MIM Distributors appeals to Warden: Why no notification?
Show Text
Robert H. Trimble, Warden (A)
Pleasant Valley State Prison
P.O. Box 8500
Coalinga, CA 93210
23 June 2011
Dear Warden Trimble,
This letter is concerning continued censorship of mail from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXX, who is a prisoner held at Pleasant Valley State Prison. The items in question are at least: (1) a parcel of mail sent Priority Mail via the United States Postal Service which was returned with "Unclaimed, Refused" stamped on the outside, and was unopened; (2) a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key issue 20 (May/June 2011), which was returned with "RTS" written on the envelope. I have enclosed a copy of this newsletter for your reference.
Neither MIM Distributors nor Mr. XXX were not notified of the reason for rejection of Under Lock & Key 20 or the Priority Mail envelope. However, according to CDCR's Department Operations Manual 2001,
"The CDCR Form 1819, Notification of Disapproval-Mail/Packages/Publications, shall be utilized by each institution/facility when incoming or outgoing mail/packages/publications addressed to or being sent by an inmate are withheld or disallowed. Additionally, in accordance with CCR, Subsection 3134(i), the CDCR Form 1819 informs the inmate of the reason, disposition, name of official disallowing the mail/package/publication, and the name of the official to whom an appeal can be directed. When inmate mail is disapproved based on the criteria established in CCR Section 3006 and 3135, DOM Subsection 54010.8.1, or DOM Section 54010.13 and 54010.14, a copy of the CDCR Form 1819 and the supporting document(s) (e.g., a photocopy of representative pages) shall be retained by each institution/facility for a minimum of seven years for litigation purposes."
Clearly you must still have the documentation supporting the censorship of this mail from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXX. Both MIM Distributors and Mr. XXX would be very interested to know why these publications were disallowed, and additionally why neither party were sent 1819 forms in the first place.
We look forward to your timely response concerning the overturn of this incorrect denial.
Robert H. Trimble, Warden (A)
Pleasant Valley State Prison
P.O. Box 8500
Coalinga, CA 93210
January 13, 2012
RE: June 30, 2011 letter from Correction Captain K.R. Nash regarding censorship of materials from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXX.
Dear Warden Trimble,
On June 30, 2011 a letter from Correction Captain K.R. Nash was sent to MIM Distributors regarding censorship of materials. The items in question are at least: (1) a parcel of mail sent Priority Mail via the United States Postal Service which was returned with "Unclaimed, Refused" stamped on the outside, and was unopened; (2) a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key issue 20 (May/June 2011), which was returned with "RTS" written on the envelope.
The reasoning Captain Nash gave for this censorship was a memorandum from Scott Kernan dated December 31 [sic], 2006, enacting a ban on mail from MIM Distributors. Such a determination is evidently illegitimate and unconstitutional for several reasons; MIM Distributors intends to appeal the censorship determination requesting it be reversed and the publication be distributed to the above mentioned prisoners.
The main reason why the censorship determination is illegitimate resides in the fact that it recalls a ban that in fact no longer exists.
Following the settlement agreement reached in Prison Legal News v. CDCR, your own Department Operations Manual was reviewed and corrected and it states now, at section 54010.21, that ?There shall be no 'Approved Vendor Lists' for any publication. The CDCR shall distribute a centralized list of disapproved publications that are prohibited as contraband. Publications that are enumerated on this centralized list are not allowed in any institutions. Local institutions may not add items to the centralized list.?
Consequently, on October 21, 2009, a memorandum was released to all Associate Directors, Wardens, Mail Room Supervisors, and Correctional Captains/Facility Captains, from Suzan L. Hubbard, Director of the Division of Adult Institutions. The memorandum states in part, ?A publication that does not appear on the centralized list must be reviewed for approval or denial on a case-by-case basis under CCR Sections 3006, 3134, 3134.1, and 3135. If a specific issue of an unlisted publication is denied because of a Title 15 violation, staff must issue a CDCR Form 1819, Notification of Disapproval-Mail/Packages/Publications (Rev-6/98) to each inmate who was an intended recipient of the publication. In addition, staff must complete and send a notification to the publisher, as described in section 3124.1(d).?
In 2008, MIM was not on the centralized list, and we have reason to believe we are not on the 2011 list either, for your determination makes no reference at all to it. Nor does the censorship determination states that a specific review of the particular publication has been conducted by your staff.
It is also important to highlight that your Department 2006 ban was in any case already unconstitutional, for the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear since 1989 that "Wardens may not reject a publication 'solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social[,] sexual, or . . . unpopular or repugnant,' or establish an excluded list of publications, but must review each issue of a subscription separately." Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989).
Another element to be considered here, is that appeals submitted in the past against similar censorship determinations have been resolved favorably to MIM Distributors. As late as July 12, 2011, Appeals Examiner K. J. Allen, an employee who investigates Director's Level Appeals, stated in an appeal decision to a prisoner, that ?while Maoist International Movement publications were previously disallowed based upon the direction of CDCR administration staff, the publications are currently not listed on the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications. Thus, a blanket denial on all such publications is inappropriate, and the institution must process the appellant's mail in accordance with applicable departmental rules/regulations. As with all publications, the appellant's mailing must be reviewed and evaluated on a case-by-case basis in accordance with all departmental regulations. Unless this specific Maoist International Movement publication is considered contraband, as noted within the CCR 3006, the publication shall be issued to the appellant and/or allowed to be ordered and received.? (see IAB Case No. 1020001.)
MIM Distributors therefore appeals the above mentioned censorship determination and once again requests that the decision be reversed for all the reasons stated above. MIM Distributors also requests that the publication be delivered to the mentioned prisoners as soon as possible.
We?d also appreciate if you took any necessary, appropriate and advisable measure (such as internal investigations, proper employees? training and similar) to stop this illegal ban on all publications coming from MIM Distributors, and start determining the allowance of publications on an individual basis.
Finally, allow us to remind you that if you should determine a publication to be inadmissible at Pleasant Valley State Prison, you are legally obligated to provide to the sender and the intended recipient the name or identification of the publication, and the specific reason why it is being censored. This reason must be legitimately related to penological interested as laid out in Turner v. Safely, and reiterated in your Department Operations Manual (see DOM Section 54010.16).
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
MIM Distributors says you still have illegal practices, and evaded all our points raised on 1/16
Show Text
Associate Warden R Fisher Jr.
Pleasant Valley state Prison
P.O. Box 8500
Coalinga, CA 93210-8500
May 4, 2012
RE: Your letter dated February 16, 2012
Dear Associate Warden Fisher,
This is in response to your letter dated February 16, 2012. Your letter from February 16 is in response to ours dated January 13, 2012. Our January 13 letter was written regarding a censorship determination that excluded materials sent from MIM Distributors to prisoner XXX, a prisoner held at Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP).
While we appreciate that you are not also attempting to uphold Captain Nash's use the defunct 2006 Kernan memo to ban MIM literature, we still take issue with multiple points raised in, or omitted from, your February 16 letter:
1. Correctional Captains are still citing a defunct 2006 memo as grounds for censorship of our literature.
2. Mail is being returned to us simply with "RTS" or "refused" stamped on the envelope, without including proper documentation of notification as outlined in your DOM.
3. MIM Distributors sent much mail into PVSP since Under Lock & Key No. 20 May/June 2011.
First, your February 16 letter states "In your letter, you did not specify if Captain Nash banned your publication or simply disallowed the May/June 2011 issue to be distributed." Yet in our January 13 letter, we listed two items which were returned to MIM Distributors, and then stated "The reasoning Captain Nash gave for this censorship was a memorandum from Scott Kernan dated December 31 [sic], 2006, enacting a ban on mail from MIM Distributors." MIM Distributors clearly contended that on June 30, 2011, Captain Nash illegitimately cited a 2006 ban on all MIM publications, in order to support the negative determination to exclude literature/publications by MIM Distributors.
Furthermore, as the Associate Warden of PVSP, you have plain access to the above mentioned letters, as well as to the censorship determination it refers to, and therefore you are responsible to read these documents, interpret them if necessary, and address the concerns we raised in relation to them. Instead, with the considerations contained in your letter you simply eluded the issues we brought to your attention, leaving us with no clear response.
Therefore, we have to recall here that the censorship determination is evidently illegitimate and unconstitutional for several reasons, all stated in the previous letter we sent you regarding this matter. As Associate Warden, Correctional Captains' actions are made under your umbrella of responsibility. If they are carrying out unconstitutional acts in your facility, you must remedy this problem, and can held liable. We clearly stated in our January 13 letter that this was happening, and you need to fix this problem.
Second, as we stated in our January 13 letter, according to CDCR's own policies and procedures, you must send notification to a sender of why their mail is being denied delivery to its intended recipients, and offer them a chance to appeal this decision. When mails is returned stamped "RTS" or "refused," this is not a reason for denial of delivery, and it is not an offer to appeal.
Lastly, we also have to contend your statement in your February 16 letter that "PVSP mailroom has not received any publications from MIM since May/June 2011." Our records indicate that between June 2011 and February 2012, MIM Distributors has sent in no less than 100 articles of mail to prisoners at Pleasant Valley State Prison, most of which was publications. Some of that mail has even been confirmed as received by prisoners. It is strange that you would make such an assertion when it is so far from reality.
Therefore, with this letter, MIM Distributors request:
1. that a thorough investigation be conducted into the handling of mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners held at PVSP, in general, and since June 2011 specifically;
2. that all personnel at PVSP be trained in agreement with the Associate Warden's determination that MIM Distributors is not a banned or restricted publisher;
3. and that all future mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners at PVSP be handled properly by PVSP mailroom staff in accordance with DOM sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
Robert H. Trimble, Warden (A)
Pleasant Valley State Prison
P.O. Box 8500
Coalinga, CA 93210
CDCR, Office of the Ombudsman
1515 S Street, Room 124 South
Sacramento, CA 95811
Delivery confirmation says parcel was delivered!
Show Text
Warden Anthony Hedgpeth
Salinas Valley State Prison
P.O. Box 1050
Soledad, CA 93960-1050
May 4, 2012
RE: Censorship of Priority Mail Envelope sent to Mr. XXX on September 12, 2011 from MIM Distributors
Dear Warden Hedgpeth,
I am writing this letter about a censorship incident that recently occurred at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP).
Background
As you may recall, you and I have exchanged a series of letters about mysterious ongoing censorship of mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners held at SVSP. I will outline them below for historical reference, so this most recent censorship incident can be put into the context of the long runaround your Department has been putting us through to
In your letter dated April 28, 2009, you acknowledged that MIM Distributors does not appear on the list of disapproved publishers.
In your letter dated July 6, 2009, you apologize that a letter intended for a prisoner was censored. To accompany this letter, the SVSP Mailroom Supervisor informed MIM Distributors via telephone that the mailroom staff had been trained to not ban literature from us.
In your letter dated March 23, 2010, you say that a temporary mailroom staff was banning our literature, yet again. Note that this letter was written almost one full year after you yourself acknowledged that MIM Distributors was not a disapproved publisher. How long does it take to send a memorandum from your office to the Mailroom Supervisor? It is not really our concern whether the staff is temporary or permanent. Our concern is that we are sending mail into SVSP, and people you are responsible for are denying our First Amendment right. This is still an ongoing problem, which I will outline below.
In your letter dated September 9, 2010, you claim that there is no censorship of mail from MIM Distributors at SVSP, even though our contact with prisoners there tells us otherwise.
Finally, in a letter dated December 16, 2010, you state that the Mailroom Supervisor claims that "mailroom staff has not seen any newsletters or publications from 'MIM' come through the mailroom since September or October 2010." This letter is quite dated, so I will just make one point: In addition to multiple letters and special literature orders sent into SVSP between "September or October 2010" and December 2010, on November 19, 2010 we mailed our newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 17 (November/December 2010) via Standard Presorted mail with the USPS to no less than one dozen prisoners held there.
Present Issue
Recently Mr. XXX informed MIM Distributors of several articles of mail which were not delivered to him, sent from MIM Distributors. I will list the articles of mail which were not delivered to Mr. XXX, and then focus on one in particular. It should be noted that none of the denials listed below were accompanied by notification to the publisher/sender or prisoner, as outlined in your DOM sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3.
Article Date Sent
Under Lock & Key No. 16 (September/October 2010) 9/24/2010
Under Lock & Key No. 17 (November/December 2010) 11/19/2010
a letter 9/2/2011
newspapers in a Priority Mail envelope 9/12/2011
Under Lock & Key No. 22 (September/October 2011) 9/21/2011
Under Lock & Key No. 23 (November/December 2011) 11/18/2011
The article of mail I would like to focus on is the Priority Mail envelope which was sent on September 21, 2011. With this letter I have enclosed a copy of the U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt which accompanied the Priority Mail envelope. As you can see, it is stamped as being sent on September 12, 2011. I have also enclosed a print-out of the confirmation of delivery from the USPS website. Clearly the package was delivered to the SVSP mailroom.
But then what happened to it? This is a point that only you and your Mailroom Supervisor can answer. Neither MIM Distributors nor Mr. XXX were notified that this envelope would be denied delivery to Mr. XXX.
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 you are certainly aware of, 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 prisoner, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the mailroom staff has made with regard to any of the above-listed articles of mail sent to Mr. XXX.
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner 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:
1. to know whether or not a determination has been made regarding the Priority Mail envelope which was delivered to SVSP on September 13, 2011 by the U.S. Postal Service;
2. 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;
3. that adequate notice be provided to the prisoner regarding this issue;
4. and, lastly, that mail from MIM Distributors be handled properly by SVSP mailroom staff, in accordance with CDCR's policies and procedures, U.S. law, and your own assurances.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
CDCR, Office of the Ombudsman
1515 S Street, Room 124 South
Sacramento, CA 95811
Notice to Inmate of a Statewide Disapproved Publication (MT11 on MLDP) Download Documentation
03/13/2012
MIM Distributors appeals censorship
Show Text
Assistant Director of Support Services
North Carolina Department of Corrections
Division of Prisons
4260 MSC
Raleigh, NC, 27699-4260
March 13, 2012
RE: Censorship incident occurred at Foothills 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 Foothills Correctional Institution in Morganton, North Carolina.
MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner a magazine titled MIM Theory 11: Amerikkkan Prisons on Trial on two separate occasions: once on December 16, 2011 and again on February 7, 2012.
We recently learned from the prisoner (Mr.XXX) that he never received the publications listed above. On January 4, 2012 Mr. XXX received a Notice to Inmate of Disapproval & Appeal/Waiver Form for the first copy of the magazine. Mr. XXX appealed the censorship on January 5, 2012. In February 2012, Mr. XXX informed MIM Distributors that the publication was placed on the Master List of Disapproved Publications on January 23, 2012.
I am writing you this letter to inform you that MIM Distributors did not receive any notice of disapproval about this magazine at any stage in the process outlined above. Therefore we believe that putting MIM Theory 11: Amerikkkan Prisons on Trial on the Master List of Disapproved Publications without first offering the publisher appeal rights is a violation of the United States Constitution, and your own Department's Policies.
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. McCrae, 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. McCrae) 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 be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of the above-named magazine
➢ and for the above-named magazine to be removed from the Master List of Disapproved Publications until an appeals process with all relevant parties involved can be carried out.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Bailey Clarke, Legal Assistant
MIM Distributors
P.O. Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
Letter to Publisher, disapproved for delivery for reason I: intimates or sexually harass staff Download Documentation
03/20/2012
Letter from prisoner to MIM Distributors - appeal rights being denied
Show Text
My Under Lock & Key number 24 was turned down because they said it intimidates staff. They wouldn't even give me the paper to appeal the decision like they normally do because they know they only doing it because they can. With me bring on maximum security housing unit here I have no source to contact the outside world other than by pen and paper, and half the time that doesn't make it through. So let me know as soon as possible if you've received my letter. Thank you.
04/03/2012
MIM Distributors says no notification and no appeal rights is illegal
Show Text
Assistant Director of Support Services
North Carolina Department of Corrections
Division of Prisons
4260 MSC
Raleigh, NC, 27699-4260
April 3, 2012
RE: Censorship incident occurred at Scotland Correctional Institution ? exclusion of publication sent to prisoner XXX from MIM Distributors
Dear Assistant Director,
I am writing this letter about a censorship incident that recently occurred at Scotland Correctional Institution in Laurinburg, North Carolina.
MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key No. 24 (January/February 2012). This newsletter was mailed via Standard Presorted Mail with the USPS on January 30, 2012.
We recently learned from the prisoner (Mr. XXX) that he never received the publication listed above. Mr. XXX informed us that he was told that the publication is rejected because it "intimated staff," but that he was not given any appeal rights. MIM Distributors did not receive any notice of censorship determination from your Department.
Your Division of Prisons Policy D.0100 states at sections D.0103 and D.0107 that prisoners and publishers have to be notified of negative determinations, and both the sender and recipient are entitled 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. McCrae, 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:
1. to know what determination has been made regarding the mentioned publication;
2. 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;
3. and that adequate notice and appeal rights be offered to the prisoner and MIM Distributors for any future negative determinations on incoming mail.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
The enclosed publication has been soaked in an unknown substance and allowed to dry before shipping (magazine just wrinkled, not liquid damaged)[Download Documentation]
The enclosed publication has been soaked in an unknown substance and allowed to dry before shipping (magazine mailed with just wrinkled, not liquid damaged)[Download Documentation]
MIM Distributors protests censorship of ULK 21-23
Show Text
Director Charles L. Ryan
Arizona Department of Corrections
1601 W. Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ 85007
January 3, 2012
RE: Censorship incident occurred at ASPC Florence; exclusion of publications sent to inmate Mr. XXX from MIM Distributors.
Dear Director Ryan,
I am writing this letter about what seems to be a censorship incident that recently occurred in ASPC Florence. MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned inmate three different issue of a publication titled Under Lock & Key. The three issues MIM Distributors sent to Mr. XXX were:
1. Under lock & Key, issue 21 on 07/19/2011
2. Under lock & Key, issue 22 on 09/21/2011
3. Under lock & Key, issue 23 on 11/18/2011
We recently learned from Mr. XXX that he never received any of those publications. Nor did he receive any determination from your Department explaining whether and why the publications were censored. Similarly, MIM Distributors didn?t receive any notice of censorship determination either.
Your Department Order no. 914 states at section 914.02 par. 1.13 that ?Excluding holidays and weekends, incoming mail shall not be held and shall be delivered within 24 hours unless circumstances make delivery impractical.?
The same Order no. 914 also states that incoming publications may be held only if they are subject to review; in this case, though, prompt notice shall be given to the prisoner, according to the review process established by section 914.09 of the Department Order, which also entitles the prisoner to appeal censorship determinations.
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. XXX, 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 be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials and/or letter. We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your timely response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
Prison Law Office
Mrs. Sara Norman
General Delivery
San Quentin, CA 94964
Perkins & Coie LLP
2901 Central Ave., Suite 2000
Phoenix Az, 85012-2788
01/25/2012
Prison and Review Committee have no record of receiving this publication Download Documentation
MIM Distributors writes to administrators regarding ongoing censorship without notification
Show Text
Ombudsman Coordinator
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099
April 3, 2012
RE: Allred Unit ? History of censorship without giving notification to publisher or prisoners
Dear Ombudsman Coordinator,
I am writing this letter about a series of censorship incidents that recently occurred at Allred Unit in Iowa Park, Texas. I apologize that this information is somewhat dated; unfortunately since we were not notified of this censorship, we had to rely on our own investigation which took some time.
Using the U.S. Postal Service, MIM Distributors sent several prisoners at Allred Unit mail which they never received. The mailroom staff at Allred Unit failed to provide notice of censorship to the prisoners and MIM Distributors. Below is a detailed outline of the mail I am referring to:
To XXX
1. A letter dated June 2011 sent via First Class mail on June 26, 2011
2. Under Lock & Key No. 21 (July/August 2011) sent via Presorted Standard mail on July 28, 2011
To YYY
Under Lock & Key No. 22 (November/December 2011) sent via Presorted Standard mail on September 21, 2011
To ZZZ
A book titled The Black Panthers Speak sent via USPS on May 15, 2011
The TDCJ Board Policy-03.91 (rev. 2) "Uniform Offender Correspondence Rules" states at Section IV E "If a publication is rejected, the offender and sender shall be provided a written notice of the disapproval and a statement of the reason for disapproval within 72 hours of receipt of the publication on a Publication Denial Form. Within the same time period, the offender and sender shall be notified of the procedure for appeal. The offender shall be given a sufficiently detailed description of the rejected publication to permit effective use of the appeal procedures. The offender or sender may appeal the rejection of the publication through procedures provided by these rules."
Additionally, 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 refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to 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:
1. to know what determination has been made over the mentioned materials;
2. 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;
3. and that all future decisions to censor material from MIM Distributors to anyone held in Allred Unit be accompanied by procedurally and legally required notification to the publisher.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
Richard Wathen, Senior Warden
Allred Unit
2101 FM 369 North
Iowa Park, TX 76367
Jason Heaton, Region V Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Region V Director's Office
304 West 6th Street
Plainview, TX 79072
04/17/2012
Mail System Coordinators Panel - claims prisoners were allowed to receive Black Panthers Speak Download Documentation
Prisoner reports censorship overturned, but some pages missing
04/17/2012
MIM Distributors appeals censorship
Show Text
Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Services Administrator
2601 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
April 17, 2012
RE: Appeal of the censorship decision regarding book sent to prisoner XXX from MIM Distributors
To Whom it May Concern:
I am writing this letter about a censorship incident that recently occurred at Santa Rosa Correctional Institution. MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner a photocopy of a book titled ?Palante Young Lords Party? by Michael Abramson.
We recently received from the Santa Rosa CI a notice of impoundment of publication (attached), which informs us that the above publication was impounded because it allegedly ?presents a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the correctional system or the safety of any person?. The form cites "pages 1 thru 6 gang activity" as the page numbers in the publication where the inadmissible material is to be found.
I believe the mailroom staff at Santa Rosa CI seem to have completely misunderstood the content and the purpose of the publication we sent to the above mentioned prisoner. The first six pages of the photocopy actually tell the story of a social movement that organized many programs to help the Puerto Rican communities in New York City and Philadelphia; such programs are briefly described in the above mentioned pages and among them a program for lead poisoning detection and a free breakfast program are particularly analyzed.
This book clearly focuses on social work and on community oriented services. It is unclear how the mailroom staff may have viewed the content of the publication as related to gang activity. In other words, it couldn?t be more evident that the mailroom staff have completely misunderstood the content and the purpose of the publication we sent to the prisoner or, in the alternative, that a thorough review of the publication hasn?t actually been conducted at all.
It is important to note that the U.S. Supreme Court has already stated in Procunier v. Martinez, 416, U.S. 396 (1974) and in Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490, U.S. at 416 n. 14 (1989), that prison officials violate the First Amendment when for reasons unrelated to legitimate penological interests they engage in "censorship of . . . expression of 'inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views'."
Lastly, the motivation alleged to support the censorship determination seems to be too vague and not sufficiently articulate to satisfy the threshold of adequate motivation established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Federal Courts have stated in several occasions that "Prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385 and that "Unsupported security claims couldn't justify infringement on First Amendment rights." Crofton v. Roe (9th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d 957.
Based on the above considerations, we request that you decide to allow the book to be delivered to prisoners held in Santa Rosa Correctional Institution.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c2647.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c2793.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c2772.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c3702.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c3703.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c2768.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c2769.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c3573.jpg){kind=link}
