Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Director Charles L. Ryan
1601 W. Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ 85007

25 August 2010

Director Ryan:

This letter is regarding the censorship of several articles of mail that were sent from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXX who is housed at ASPC Central Unit. For all of these articles of mail, we have not been sent any notifications from ASPC Central Unit mailroom staff as to why they were censored. This has been an ongoing issue, that you have been aware, of for nearly a year.

The first item I'd like to discuss is a magazine titled MIM Theory 2/3: Revolutionary Feminism (1992). This magazine was censored on 25 June 2010 per DO 914.08 policy #1.1.1 "Riots/Work Stoppages/Resistance." The Notice of Result - Publication Review did not provide a specific page number on which riots/work stoppages/resistance are supposedly mentioned, nor how the mention of these things legitimately affects the penological interests at ASPC Central Unit. Please refer me to the page number where this information can be found so that I may investigate the issue further. If this claim cannot be substantiated, please deliver the magazine to Mr. XXX without further delay.

Surely there is not a practice of censoring all major newspapers at ASPC Central Unit, or perusing them each day for mentions of riots/work stoppages/resistance. I doubt that a mention of any of these things would be related to the legitimate penological interests of the institution such that MIM Theory 2/3 should be censored.

The next two items were censored from Mr. XXX with no reasons given; the envelopes were simply returned to MIM Distributors from mailroom staff. One was a 1-page letter that outlined the prisoner-support legal work that MIM(Prisons) does and ways that prisoners can participate. The second letter was a study group response that Mr. XXX is a participant in. May I remind you that in October 2009 a prior study group response was arbitrarily censored from Mr. XXX and no sound answer was given as to why. I wrote you multiple letters regarding the October censorship and it was never resolved to my knowledge.

The fourth and final article of mail I'd like to address is the newsletter Under Lock & Key issue 14 (May/June 2010). As of 24 June 2010 this publication was still pending review. Please inform me of the final decision whether to censor Under Lock & Key issue 14 or not, and if so, please be explicit as to why.

In summary, the mailroom staff at ASPC Central Unit has been arbitrarily and illegally denying Mr. XXX mail that is sent from MIM Distributors for nearly a year. Furthermore, per Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987), the mailroom staff is granted the right to censor mail to the extent that they do so in a manner reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Randomly checking one of thirty boxes is neither a thorough nor superficial explanation of how an item relates to the legitimate penological interest of the institution.

As an employee of the State of Arizona, you are obligated to respect both Mr. XXX's and MIM Distributors' First Amendment right to free speech. In your 22 April 2010 letter to me, you made it clear that you have no interest in doing this unless forced by a court. This is a serious and illegal situation that your staff is creating, and you are enabling, at ASPC Central Unit. I have several requests that I hope you can fulfill to remedy the issue:

1) The immediate end to interference of mail intended for Mr. XXX from MIM Distributors by ASPC Central Unit mailroom staff.

2) Explanation of why MIM Theory 2/3: Revolutionary Feminism (1992) allegedly violates DO 914.08 policy #1.1.1 "Riots/Work Stoppages/Resistance" and how this relates to the legitimate penological interests of the institution.

3) The results of the pending review of Under Lock & Key issue 14 (May/June 2010) and, if censored, a detailed explanation of why.

4) Reasons for why the study group response and legal letter mentioned above were returned to MIM Distributors with no explanation or notice.

We appreciate your timely response and efforts to resolve this illegal practice.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Tim Virga, Warden
P.O. Box 290002
Represa, CA 95671-002

28 June 2010

Dear Warden Virga,

This letter is much the same as the one sent to your office on 1 June 2010 regarding the censorship of a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 13 (March/April 2010) was sent from MIM Distributors to several prisoners held at your facility. In our last letter we asked for an explanation as to why Under Lock & Key issue 13 was censored, and to inform you that your mailroom staff are censoring publications without viewing their contents.

Again, MIM Distributors sent in mail to several prisoners held at your facility. And again, they were returned to MIM Distributors in exactly the same manner as Under Lock & Key issue 13. The envelopes were stamped with "Return to Sender" and a list of options for the mailroom staff to check to explain the denial. However, none of the options were checked. Please refer to the envelope that I included in my last letter to you for a visual representation of what I am describing.

The contents of the letter most recently returned by CSP-Sac mailroom staff was copies of the 1 June letter I sent to you (with the names and CDCR #s of the prisoners removed) and a copy of our guide to fighting censorship, which describes that prisoners should file appeals and the necessary steps to filing a court case, if necessary.

As you know, there must be a legitimate penological interest in the censorship of incoming mail. In addition to the ambiguous stamp on the envelopes, they were all returned unopened. How could your mailroom staff determine that the publication Under Lock & Key issue 13 should be censored at CSP-Sac if they did not view it?

It is clear that your mailroom staff is enacting a blind ban of mail from MIM Distributors. According to Prison Legal News v. CDCR, each publication and letter must be reviewed on an individual basis, and it is illegal to ban a distributor who is not on the centralized list that is put out by CDCR annually. In 2008, MIM was not on the banned list, and we have reason to believe we are not on the 2010 list either, because no one has referred us to it. So we request that you stop this illegal ban on all publications coming from MIM Distributors, and start determining the allowance of publications on an individual basis.

Additionally, allow me to remind you that if you should determine a publication to be inadmissible at CSP-Sac, 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.

We are requesting (1) a detailed explanation of why this publication was denied delivery to the above mentioned prisoners, (2) an investigation into the validity of the claim that it should be denied, so that it may be overturned, (3) prompt delivery of the publications Under Lock & Key issue 13 and our Censorship Guide, and (4) an end to the blind ban of communications between MIM Distributors and prisoners held at CSP-Sacramento. We look forward to your timely response concerning the overturn of this incorrect denial.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Director of Corrections and Rehabilitation
PO Box 942883
Sacramento, CA 94283

21 August 2010

Dear Director,

This letter is to inform you of the illegal censorship that MIM Distributors is experiencing at California State Prison - Sacramento and to ask for your assistance in resolving this issue. In February 2010, Warden Tim V. Virga began instituting a ban against all publications and letters going into California State Prison - Sarcamento sent from MIM Distributors.

In the most recent response we have received from Warden Virga, dated 22 June 2010, he refers to the outdated ban imposed by Undersecretary of Operations Scott Kernan to validate this practice. We are familiar with this 2006 ban. However, we are also familiar with the settlement between Prison Legal News and CDCR, with its accompanying list of banned publications and 21 October 2008 memo that reads, ?The centralized list of disapproved publications supersedes any prior departmental or facility memoranda regarding banned publications. Facilities must use only the most updated version of the centralized list to identify publications subject to a general ban.? As I tried explained to Warden Virga in my previous letter, MIM Distributors does not appear on this list.

If you have an updated list of banned publications that includes MIM Distributors, please send it to me at the address below. If not, then please advise Warden Virga of his illegal activity and see to its immediate reversal. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Warden
USP Atwater
P.O. Box 019001
Atwater, CA 95301

21 August 2010

Dear Sir or Madam,

On 22 February 2010, I wrote to you to inquire about why the publication Under Lock & Key was denied delivery to several prisoners at USP Atwater. On 2 April 2010 Supervisory Correctional Systems Specialist M. Fischer wrote to tell me that it was an error with the post office and that MIM Distributors should resend the publication.

However, we are facing a similar situation, months later. Issue 15 (July/August 2010) of Under Lock & Key was denied delivery to prisoners at USP Atwater, with no explanation as to why. The returned publications are marked "UTF", but according to the BOP website these prisoners are still housed at USP Atwater. We doubt that the USPS is making the same error again.

As I wrote in my 22 February letter to your office, I will reiterate that we are sure you are aware of the following case law:

?When a prison regulation restricts a prisoner?s First Amendment right to free speech, it is valid only if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.? Lindell v. Frank, 377 F.3d 655, 657 (7th Cir. 2004), citing Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).

"The court required that an inmate be notified of the rejection of correspondence and that the author of the correspondence be allowed to protest the decision and secure review by a prison official other than the original censor." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800

What is happening at USP Atwater with mail from MIM Distributors is completely illegal. We appreciate your timely response and efforts to resolve this illegal practice.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Tim Virga, Warden
P.O. Box 290002
Represa, CA 95671-002

1 June 2010

Dear Warden Virga,

A publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 13 (March/April 2010) was sent to several prisoners held at your facility. It was sent from MIM Distributors in San Francisco, CA by standard mail on 30 March 2010. This publication was returned to MIM Distributors with no explanation and denied delivery to the following prisoners:

XXX

This letter is to inquire about why this publication was censored from CSP-Sac. The envelopes were stamped with "Return to Sender" and a list of options for the mailroom staff to check to explain the denial. However, none of the options were checked. I have included a copy of an envelope so you can see what I am describing.

As you know, there must be a legitimate penological interest in the censorship of incoming mail. In addition to the ambiguous stamp on the envelopes, they were all returned unopened. How could your mailroom staff determine that the publication Under Lock & Key issue 13 should be censored at CSP-Sac if they did not view it?

We are requesting (1) a detailed explanation of why this publication was denied delivery to the above mentioned prisoners, (2) an investigation into the validity of the claim that it should be denied, so that it may be overturned, (3) prompt delivery of the publication Under Lock & Key issue 13, and (4) an end to the interference to the communication between MIM Distributors and prisoners held at CSP-Sacramento. We look forward to your timely response concerning the overturn of this incorrect denial.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Director of Corrections and Rehabilitation
PO Box 942883
Sacramento, CA 94283

24 August 2010

Dear Director,

This letter is to inform you of the illegal censorship that MIM Distributors is experiencing at California State Prison - Sacramento and to ask for your assistance in resolving this issue. In February 2010, Warden Tim V. Virga began instituting a ban against all publications and letters going into California State Prison - Sarcamento sent from MIM Distributors.

In the most recent response we have received from Warden Virga, dated 22 June 2010, he refers to the outdated ban imposed by Undersecretary of Operations Scott Kernan to validate this practice. We are familiar with this 2006 ban. However, we are also familiar with the settlement between Prison Legal News and CDCR, with its accompanying list of banned publications and 21 October 2008 memo that reads, ?The centralized list of disapproved publications supersedes any prior departmental or facility memoranda regarding banned publications. Facilities must use only the most updated version of the centralized list to identify publications subject to a general ban.? As I tried explained to Warden Virga in my previous letter, MIM Distributors does not appear on this list.

If you have an updated list of banned publications that includes MIM Distributors, please send it to me at the address below. If not, then please advise Warden Virga of his illegal activity and see to its immediate reversal. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Menard Correctional Center
Attn: Publication Review Officer
711 Kaskaskia Street
PO Box 711
Menard, IL 62259

10 May 2010

Publication Review Officer,

This letter is to object to the notifications of denial to deliver mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I. The publication that was denied delivery is titled Under Lock & Key issue #13 (March/April 2010). The reason that Publication Review Officer L. Shemonic gave for this denial was "Pg. 7 promotes hunger strike and suicide, possible other pages" in addition to alleging that it "appears to be otherwise detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline or it might facilitate criminal activity or be detrimental to mental health."

On page 7 of Under Lock & Key issue 13 there is an article titled "Prisoner driven to suicide" that is a narration by a prisoner regarding her/his experience with defeatism, hopelessness and suicide. The article continues on to page 12 of the newsletter and is followed by a response from MIM(Prisons), that says,

"We are writing to remind you that your life is very valuable. . . We encourage you to become more involved in revolutionary struggle instead of suicide. . . For someone like yourself, who supports the struggle against all forms of oppression, to remove your life as a resource from this world is to work in favor of the oppressors."

In light of this fact, it is obvious that the article about suicide and hunger strikes on page 7 of Under Lock & Key issue 13 does not "promote hunger strike and suicide," like L. Shemonic erroneously claimed.

We look forward to your timely response concerning the overturn of this incorrect denial. We also would appreciate the timely deliver of Under Lock & Key issue 13 to the prisoners named above.

Additionally, we would appreciate a thorough retraining of the mailroom staff at Menard Correctional Center because issues of Unlock Lock & Key are routinely denied to prisoners at Menard on initial receipt, and then the denials are overturned on review. This runaround is a waste of time for MIM Distributors, the prisoners involved, and the Publication Review Officer who has to review these incorrect denials.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties

see 06/30/2010 documentation for "Prisoner requests explanation for censorship"

see 07/25/2010 documentation

Despite its initial rejection, I did get the MIM Theory 10 after a hearing held at this prison. As I suspected I would, being that we are in Detroit, a community where everyone is just a single slip-up from these prisons,