Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Warden Timothy E. Busby
Ironwood State Prison
P.O. Box 2229
Blythe, CA 92226

January 24th, 2012

RE: Censorship incident occurred at Ironwood State Prison ? exclusion of publication sent to prisoner xxx by MIM Distributors.

I am writing this letter about what seems to be a censorship incident that recently occurred at Ironwood State Prison.

MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner issue no. 23 of a publication titled Under Lock & Key. This publication was sent on November 18, 2011.

We recently learned from the prisoner that he never received the publication. Nor did he receive any determination of your Department explaining whether and why the publication was censored. MIM Distributors didn?t receive any notice of censorship determination either.

Your DOM states at sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3 that respectively prisoners and publishers have to be notified of negative determinations and entitles both the sender and the recipient to appeal rejections of publications and letters.

As of now, it is impossible for us to understand why the publication hasn?t been delivered to the prisoner and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor it.

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 the publication 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 over 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.

We also request that adequate notice be provided to the prisoner.

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

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Warden Ralph M. Diaz
California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison
P.O. Box 7100
Corcoran, CA 93212

January 24th, 2012

RE: Censorship incident occurred at SATF-CSP, Corcoran? 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 SATF-CSP Corcoran.

MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner, among others, issues no. 16 and 21 of a publication titled Under Lock & Key. These publications were sent to Mr. xxx on September 24, 2010 and July 29, 2011 respectively.

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

Your DOM states at sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3 that respectively prisoners and publishers have to be notified of negative determinations and entitles both the sender and the recipient to appeal rejections of publications and letters.

As of now, it is impossible for us to understand why the publications haven?t been delivered to the prisoner and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor them.

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 the publications 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 over the mentioned publications;
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.

We also request that adequate notice be provided to the prisoner.

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

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

. . .
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140


Warden Randy P. Tiffts
Santa Rosa Correctional Institution
5850 East Milton Road
Milton, FL, 32583-7914

January 24th, 2012

RE: Censorship incident occurred at Santa Rosa CI ? exclusion of publication sent to prisoner xxx by MIM Distributors.

Dear Warden Tiffts,

I am writing this letter about what seems to be a censorship incident that recently occurred at Santa Rosa CI.

MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner issue no. 23 of a publication titled Under Lock & Key.

We recently learned from the prisoner that he never received the publication. Nor did he receive any determination of your Department explaining whether and why the publication was censored. MIM Distributors didn?t receive any notice of censorship determination either.

Florida Administrative Code states at sections 33-501.401 that both the prisoner and the publisher have to be notified of negative determinations and entitles both the sender and the recipient to appeal rejections of publications and letters.

As of now, it is impossible for us to understand why the publication hasn?t been delivered to the prisoner and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor it.

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 and with the cited Florida Administrative Code rule, 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 the publication 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 over 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.

We also request that adequate notice be provided to the prisoner.

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

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

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

December 7, 2011

Dear Administrator Corpening,

This letter is a follow-up letter to the one I sent you on November 20, 2010, to which you gave no response. I have included a copy of the November 2010 letter with this letter for your reference. The main complaint made in the November 2010 letter was regarding the improper handling of mail at Foothills Correctional Institution, which is an ongoing problem; a problem that you have a legal obligation to address.

The more recent mishandling of mail at Foodhills CI is regarding the correspondence between MIM Distributors and Mr. XXX, a prisoner held at Foothills CI. Two items in particular have been denied delivery by Foothills CI mailroom staff without proper legal safeguards. You were made aware of these legal safeguards in my November 2010 letter.

In July 2011, MIM Distributors mailed Mr. XXX a book titled "The CIA's Greatest Hits." Neither Mr. XXX nor MIM Distributors were notified that this book was denied delivery. Needless to say, neither party was offered a chance to appeal the decision.

In October 2011, MIM Distributors mailed Mr. XXX a magazine titled "MIM Theory 9: Psychology." MIM Distributors was not notified that this book was to be denied delivery to its intended recipient, and was not given an chance to appeal this decision.

As I outlined in my November 2010 letter to you, it is United States law that the sender and prisoner must be notified if an item of mail is being censored by prison administrators or staff (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).

With this letter we have two requests. First, we request an immediate end to the illegal practice by Foothills CI mailroom staff which effectively obstructs the First Amendment rights of both MIM Distributors and Mr. XXX. Second, we would like to request a review of, and to appeal the decision to censor "The CIA's Greatest Hits" and "MIM Theory 9: Psychology" by someone other than the original censor. We do not believe that denial of delivery of these items would stand up to the reasonableness test as laid out in Turner v. Safely 482 U.S. 78 (1987).

Please look into this issue, as this censorship is clearly illegal. We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Good news: MIM Theory, Number 9, 1995 was approved and was returned to my possession. I appealed it and I won!