MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Prisoner notifies MIM(Prisons) of censorship and files appeals
Show Text
[This issue of ULK was mailed to this subscriber in an envelope with the magazine "MIM Theory 11: Amerikkkan Prisons on Trial." When s/he writes of the article "Amerikkkan Prisons on Trial" s/he is likely referring to the magazine. Unfortunately the information given to prisoners about the actual mail that is being censored is so limited and obtuse that they often do not even know what they received.]
This correspondence is to inform you that once again this prison has selected to review to determine whether they would censor the March/April issue of Under Lock & Key based on the premise of an article titled "Amerika Prison on Trial." It has been under review now since 5/3/12. I have requested from the Prison Publication Review Committee to afford me with the regulation statute or law that the article violates. And yes, I will pursue the grievance process if the issue is ultimately censored. I would pursue a Civil Complaint, but this state requires a $150 filing fee, and I'm a lumpen-proletarian which should speak for itself.
However, I would like to know, have MIM(Prisons) received any other complaints of censorship or the withholding of Under Lock & Key by any political prisoners confined in the Illinois Department of Correction? The reason is that it would help a lot in the grievance process to see and compare whether it's just this prison that is practicing this policy?
The correspondence was disapproved in accordance with Title 15, Section 3136 as it pertains to Sections 3006 and or 3135:
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:
Promotes gang activities [CCR, Title 15, Section 3023 (a)]
Third-party correspondence [PBSP DOM Addendum, Section 54010, Attachment 10 #33]
The disposition of the letter/mailing is as follows:
Other (describe): Confiscated by SHU ISU. The mailing is disallowed as per the CCR, Title 15, Sections 3006, 3135, and 3136.
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
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
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c3689.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c2790.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c2830.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c2798.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c2797.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c2788.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c2803.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c2802.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c2647.jpg){kind=link}
