Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

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 I will outline them below for historical reference, so this most recent censorship incident can be put into the context of the long runaround your Department has been putting us through to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

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

CC: Affected parties

Lander Corpening, Administrator
Foothills Correctional Institution
5150 Western Ave
Morganton, NC 28655

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.

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.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Karen Stanback
Warden/Superintendent/Designee
Scoltand Correctional Institution
PO Box 1808
 Laurinburg, NC 28353

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

See 4/12/12 documentation

Ombudsman Coordinator
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099

April 3, 2012

RE: Censorship incident occurred at Clements Unit ? exclusion of publication sent to several prisoners from MIM Distributors


Dear Ombudsman Coordinator,

I am writing this letter about a censorship incident that recently occurred at Clements Unit in Amarillo, Texas.

MIM Distributors sent several prisoners in Clements Unit a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key No. 23 (November/December 2011). This newsletter was mailed via Standard Presorted Mail with the USPS on November 18, 2011.

We recently learned from several prisoners that they never received the publication listed above. Most of these prisoners appealed the exclusion of Under Lock & Key No 23, and sent MIM Distributors the Director's Review Committee decision to deny the publication. MIM Distributors never received any notice of censorship determination from your Department or the mailroom staff at Clements Unit.

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) or prisoner, 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 be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of our materials;
2. and that all future decisions to censor material from MIM Distributors to anyone held in Clements Unit be accompanied by procedurally and legally required notification to the publisher and prisoner.

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

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties

John Adams, Senior Warden
Clements Unit
9601 Spur 591
Amarillo, TX 79107-9606

Jason Heaton, Region V Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Region V Director's Office
304 West 6th Street
Plainview, TX 79072

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

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.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Prison denied any censorship

Director?s Review Committee
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
PO Box 99, Huntsville, Texas, 77342-0099

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 John B. Connally Unit. MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner a photocopy of a book titled ?The Almighty Latin King and Queen Nation?.

We recently received from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice a publication review/denial notification which informs us that the publication was denied ?in accordance with Board Policy 03.91?, because it allegedly ?contains material that a reasonable person would construe as written solely for the purpose of communicating information designed to achieve the breakdown of prisons through offender disruption such as strikes, riots, or security threat group activity.?

With the present letter MIM Distributors appeals the negative determination and requests the decision be reversed and the publication be delivered to the above prisoner as soon as possible.

The mailroom staff at John B. Connally Unit seems to have completely misunderstood the content and the purpose of the publication we sent to the above mentioned prisoner. The book is written by a very well-known scholar (David C. Brotherton), associate Professor and researcher at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and by an Episcopalian minister and college professor (Fr. Luis Barrios), who?s also an exponent of liberation theology, activist scholar, and new Co-Director of Pastors for Peace.

The book is the account of the self-transformation of a street organization into a social movement acting on behalf of the dispossessed, renouncing violence and the underground economy and requiring school attendance for membership. The publication focuses intentionally on the social and structural aspects of the group, analyzing the internal reform that brought it to renounce violence and become a social movement with strong roots in the communities that live in the poorest New York City neighborhoods. As it should be very clear even by briefly reading the table of contents, the purpose of the book could not be further from ?information designed to achieve the breakdown of prisons through disruption." Instead, the book is a well researched sociological and anthropological inside-view of a unique street organization, whose internal struggles with the above mentioned process of reform towards non-violence raised great interest in many different research fields.

How such a publication ? whose focus is on non-violence, on making peace between communities and within prisons ? may be viewed as an attempt ?to achieve the breakdown of prisons through offender disruption? (as your censorship decision states) remains a mystery. Without doubt, if there were less prisoner-on-prisoner violence, and if more organizations were able to reform their goals and structure towards non-violence, that would relieve much of the occupational hazard for Correctional Officers and actually increase the security and good order of the correctional system, and personal self-discipline of the prisoners.

In other words, it couldn?t be more evident that the mailroom staff at John B. Connally Unit have completely misunderstood the content and the purpose of the book we sent to Mr. XXX or, in the alternative, that a thorough review of the publication hasn?t actually been conducted at all.

In addition, 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:
1) the censorship determination be reversed,
2) the publication be allowed to the above mentioned prisoner,
3) and future censorship decisions be accompanied by thorough review of the material being censored prior to denial of delivery.

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

Sincerely,

Bailey Clarke, Legal Assistant
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties